Is it possible for people who are not citizens of the US to be traitors to their own countries?
That’s perfectly reasonable.
So . . . what is a traitor, then? Specifically. Give me a definition that’s obejctive, one that doesn’t depend on terms you get to further define to suit you.
I do not know but bigger and better army diplomacy beats all. If you succeed in overthrowing the government then all bets are off and you get to make the new rules.
The founding fathers would have been hung for treason (probably) had they not won the war. After the Civil War no one would have thought it amiss had the North hung a bunch of southern leaders for treason (the North didn’t but it would not have been unusual if they did).
Rebellion is generally an all or nothing proposition for those leading it.
Way to avoid the question counselor.
I repeat. If a person willing, and knowingly accepts help from a hostile power to be elected for ANY position in the US, if that’s not treason, what would you consider it?
Election fraud? Something else? What is YOUR opinion of this situation?
Objective in the same way that giving “aid and comfort” is an objective standard that does not need further definition?
It certainly needs further definition. Which is precisely the reason I adopted, as my definition, the extant body of case law that addresses the term.
But it seems you are demanding a definition from begbert2 that needs no further clarification whereas you can rely on what the courts decided which, to some degree, was arbitrary. There were no hard rules that drew bright lines on what was and was not “aid and comfort”.
Why can’t begbert2 be as vague as the FFs were? Then leave it to the courts to fill in the blanks in this hypothetical universe.
Not treason.
Why do you care what my opinion is? I’m pointing out the lack of objective definitions in your argument. I’m not advancing any case of my own. Who cares what my opinion is? I don’t care what YOUR opinion is. If your conclusion rests squarely on your opinion, without objective facts supporting it, I have no beef with you, except the request that you stop using words that suggest you’re speaking objectively.
But what the hell. Your question contains the phrase “hostile power.” What is that? A country with which we’re at war? Or something else? The meaning of “hostile power,” makes a difference in my opinion. Is Israel a “hostile power,” because they occupy Palestine? Is China a hostile power because we have a trade imbalance? Is the UK a hostile power because we want them to complete Brexit and they’re stalling?
My sense is that you’d like to leave these things vague enough that you can simply assert conclusions you wish were true.
So I can’t even give you my opinion, meaningless as it is, unless I know what a “hostile power,” is. What are the defining characteristics of a hostile power, and where did you learn them?
Since you are okay with processes that are permitted by rules, and judicial activism is permitted by the rules, I take it that you have no problem with even the most egregious examples you can think of of judicial activism, right?
Where does it talk about traitors in the constitution? It gives a narrow legal definition of treason, but treason and traitor are not synonyms.
Lets say that a witness to the crime was brutally murdered the day before he was to testify, and the other witnesses now refuse to testify.
Your opinion suddenly changes to “I don’t think that person should be punished.”?
I don’t have a personal vendetta with the English language, so I’ll just use the real definition.
And because I don’t have a vendetta with the English language, I’ll note that dismissing the dictionary definition on the basis of it being ‘vague’ or ‘nonobjective’ whatever is dishonest partisan bullshit. Your definition is wholly subjective, because it is based on a court first convening, deliberating and handing down judgement. You have made it clear numerous times that you don’t consider a person guilty of a crime until after a judgement has been handed down. A great attitude for a lawyer, but if you start applying the same standard to the english language you can’t call a day sunny until the Supremes have convened on the matter.
So, putting aside the dishonest bullshit, let’s look at the real definition.
1 : one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason
Well, clearly, if Trump somehow did manage to commit treason (commit, not be convicted of), then he would definitely qualify as a traitor. So in that sense you’re not completely divorced from reality. But the primary definition, the first one, isn’t based on the commitment of a crime. It is by nature a subjective assessment of the supposed traitor’s acts, and if you don’t like it the english language has asked me on its behalf to remind you that you’re not the boss of it.
Has Trump betrayed another’s trust? I suppose the operative question is whether he ever had anyone’s trust. But I believe there are some people who voted or him and now feel he’s broken his promises and betrayed their expectations, and those people could in theory call him a traitor. I never trusted him though so I would say he betrayed me on that basis.
More interesting is whether he’s betrayed his obligations or duties. Reasonable people can debate whether the president has a duty to, say, not break the emoluments clause of the constitution, or to uphold rather than destroy the various agencies of the federal government, or to not subordinate our country to foreign dictators. Similar to how one can debate whether Obama betrayed the country by being a kenyan muslim, these discussions would both include whether the president did a thing and also whether doing the thing was a betrayal.
Such discussion would not hinge on whether the US was in a declared war at the time.
Something just occurred to me. Following that notion I went and checked something, and feel obliged to say that if you don’t like my definition (which is to say, the real definition), you can feel free to use this one, from the OP:
Bolding mine, definition the OP’s. It seems reasonable to say that within this thread, we know exactly what “traitor” means. And it doesn’t have anything to do with constitutional law.
Fine. Though I disagree.
Well, I do. You are an attorney are you not? I have no clue what case law you study. But would think that you, like most, have at least an opinion a about this.
Fine again. Lets say Canada. Or Greenland. New Zealand. I think they wouldn’t be consider hostile, or enemies.
I don’t intend to be vague or obtuse.
In your opinion, what crime has been committed when a person accepts help willingly from ANY foreign country to help win a federal election. That help knowingly accepted and acknowledged by all parties. And that help to win the election was in exchange to give the other nation assistance that would either benefit the candidate, and or be detrimental to the US.
I would like your opinion of this as an attorney.
If that is something you honestly and sincerely worry about as a possibility, then I don’t think rational debate on the subject is possible. If the president were in a state of mind to do such a thing, there would be far, far greater things to worry about than that. And 25th amendment solutions would kick in prior, most likely. That ’ is the check and balance for insanity.
Out of curiousity, why would a theory about Trump having a willingness to betray the country render rational debate about whether he has a willingness to betray the country impossible?
I do agree that if Trump was willing to do that there are other worse things he could try to do.
The question is, if he were to do that, would he be considered a traitor?
I didn’t see anything in the post about it being and honest and sincere worry, but a hypothetical to see how far trumps’ defenders would go to avoid calling him a traitor. As that is the case, your concerns about a rational debate can be safely put to rest.
Not if said insanity benefits the party in charge politically and/or monetarily.
OK.
But it’s not a cut-and-dried answer.
First, the statute I think might apply: 52 USC § 30121, Contributions and donations by foreign nationals:
A candidate who accepted help from a foreign country to win a federal election would be receiving an “other thing of value,” and thus find himself in violation of § 30121(a)(2). Case law construing similar statutes have confirmed, for example, that information is a “thing of value.”
But unfortunately, even though that conduct clearly violates the statute, the inquiry doesn’t end there, because I can imagine some types of assistance that would be protected (in my opinion, anyway) by the First Amendment.
For example, let’s imagine that during the 2016 campaign the Clinton team had learned that Mar a Lago employed illegal aliens, paying them below-minimum wage in cash, under the table, and threatened them with deportation if they spoke about it. Imagine that the Clinton team interviewed five such employees on camera, and used the resulting footage in a television commercial.
Would THAT be a violation of § 30121? I say no, even though the five illegal aliens interviewed were clearly providing information, an “other thing of value,” to Clinton. I say that this is the kind of discourse that the First Amendment protects, both as to the five and to Clinton herself.
So before I can answer your general question, I’d have to know a bit more detail about the kind of help Canada, Greenland[sup]*[/sup], and New Zealand provided.
[sup]*[/sup]Greenland is not a country; it’s an autonomous region under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. Not relevant to this discussion, but I didn’t want to list it as a “country…”
This is so goddamn pathetic, it’s hard to believe the ridiculousness of it. You’re saying every definition is useless.
Every word in the dictionary is defined in terms of other English-language words, which aren’t in turn defined in that definition. That’s how it works, you see.
And those words are defined elsewhere in the dictionary, in terms of other words that aren’t defined in that definition. You’ve got to go look them up too, if you don’t know what they mean.
And same deal with those words in turn, until we’ve defined every word in the English language in terms of other words in the English language. Which if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, means nothing’s actually defined, because it’s all circular.
Foolishness and bullshit in the guise of sophistry. That’s all you’ve got here.
I do see.
But there is general agreement as to the meaning of most of the words.
There is no general agreement, at least in this context, on “America’s interests,” and while “interests” has a general definition that is not in much dispute, the specifics are pretty relevant here.
Moreover, you haven’t answered – unless I missed it – how your definition squares with the concept of weighing competing interests. If America has an interest in peace, and ALSO an interest in preventing human rights abuses, your definition means that any person is a traitor who accepts a single abuse case in the interests of securing a cease-fire. No matter what choice they take, one of “America’s interests” is undermined.
So that cannot be the definition of a traitor.
No, we don’t. Which of “America’s interests,” have to be undermined? Any of them? America has an interest in imprisoning felons and an interest in securing protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the President wants his Attorney General to pursue tactics which emphasize ways to complete searches without getting them thrown out of court, is he a traitor for going against the “interests” of the Fourth Amendment? Or is he a traitor if he instructs his Attorney General to scrupulously observe the Fourth Amendment, because it’s better to let the guilty go free than to weaken the spirit of the Fourth Amendment?
Both of those are fairly described as “American interests.” Which one makes him a traitor?