I’ve noticed you just randomly using the word treason in another thread too and didn’t want to derail that one, but it doesn’t mean what you think it does, at least not in the context of American criminal law.
Yes, I do. In this case all I mean is that it’s traiterous behavior. But not technically treason. It’s not random, but you’re right, it’s technically incorrect.
Then don’t say “he has committed treason” that is a criminal allegation and it’s not really appropriate to use the “less specific” form of it when talking about someone currently being tried for criminal offenses.
I wouldn’t have objected to someone calling him a traitor, or even saying he was “behaving treasonously” but to say he committed treason is just too strongly implying that is factually what his legal offense was, and it wasn’t.
I would probably say that even in the common definitions of “traitor/treason” I can’t really agree. Historically it meant someone who tried/did commit some crime against the King (namely against the King’s rule or something that interfered with said rule.) From there it evolved into a crime in which one betrayed one’s country, but almost always in the context of betraying one’s own country for another.
Aldrich Ames committed treason (but wasn’t tried for it due to the huge legal bar), Bradley Manning just improperly released classified documents. It’s hard to point to any motive to actively undermine his country itself or to betray it to its enemies, in fact I think his genuine motivation was (if he had one, I suspect he may have just been an attention whore) a misguided attempt to help his country.
I agree with your definition. I will probably use the terms traitorous and treasonous, but I should refrain from specifying treason which has a specific legal definition. I don’t like the practice in any form.
To be clear, I don’t think Bradley Manning revealed information about acts that weren’t known or suspected, just some details that were not known. And he divulged such a volume of information that he couldn’t have known what it was he was revealing, and there couldn’t be any coherent reason for doing so. If he had released information about specific illegal incidents, I could understand a justification as a whistle-blower, but I believe he acted to assuage some internal feelings, not some great concern for others. I am concerned about the fairness of the trial he can receive, and if there is justification for his actions, I would change my mind on the subject.
And don’t get me started on Aldritch Ames.