Rove takes a walk

The BBQ Pit
81

Thing is, what exactly can Fitzgerald pin on Cheney?

Suppose Cheney calls Rove and Scooter into his office and orders them to blow Plame’s cover. Is that gonna be on a written memorandum? Or just Cheney telling them to do something? What deal could Rove cut? “Cheney told me to do it!” Then Cheney says, “No, I didn’t!”.

Libby and Rove might concievably roll over on Cheney if they could get away with it. But they can’t. And they don’t WANT to roll over on Cheney, they’re part of the inner circle.

So, nobody’s going to be charged with “treason”, or charged with revealing that Plame worked for the CIA. It’s not even clear that would be a crime. What they are being charged with is perjury and obstruction of justice and all that. Meaning, lying to Fitzgerald about exactly what they did. But as has been pointed out, it’s easy to wiggle out of perjury charges…you can revise your statements to be closer to the truth on any question where another party who’s not firmly on your team could testify about. So if you had a converstation with a reporter, you’d better revise your testimony to match theirs. But if you had a conversation with Cheney? Stonewall, stonewall, stonewall, and they’ve got nothing.

As long as Cheney never talked to reporters himself, as long as all he did was talk to Rove and Scooter, he’s untouchable.

82

Treason isn’t a crime? I agree that Cheney will probably never be charged, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy is most certainly a crime. If Fitzgerald can get two witnesses to admit that Cheney gave orders to have Plame outed, then that’s all he needs. I imagine he could also be charged with conspiracy.

83

Nice cross. Can I get you anything while you’re up there?

Hate to ruin your joy, bubbeleh, but being called a moron by someone who gets a sexual charge out of pissing people off is about as distressing as being called un-American by a coked up AWOL monkey boy.

84

That’s not treason. Maybe if he gave our war plans to Saddam Husssein in 2002, that would be treason. Leaking info to the press (assuming he did that) is most definitely not treason. Surely you know that!

“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 operative words being “adhering to their enemies”. That means you have joined the cause of the other side.

85

The operative words being “giving aid and comfort to”. That means you have in some way assisted them in their fight against us. You don’t think revealing the name and location of a CIA operative would assist the enemy in any way? That they wouldn’t be able to obtain any useful information from that operative, were they to capture him?

86

That clause is ancillary to the “adhering” part, it’s not a new clause (note that it’s not separated by “or”). But if you can give me one instance of a person leaking info like that to the press and being convicted of treason, I’ll concede that you’re right. I’m also open to a wager on this issue if you’re confident of your analysis. I am of mine.

87

Og Almighty, John. Let Poppy explain it to you, since you seem to have forgotten:

88

You are welcome to join the wager if you’d like, Elvis.

89

Arguing just for the fun of it again, are you?

90

I was under the impression that each clause was separate from each other, i.e.:

  1. Levying war against the U.S.- pretty self explanatory
  2. Adhering to the enemy- swearing allegiance to the enemy
  3. Giving aid and comfort to- can be a lot of things: revealing troop movements, giving money/arms to the enemy, helping to hide the enemy, or, revealing the fucking names and locations of our fucking operatives in the fucking field during fucking wartime.
    That’s just my interpretation, though, and I’d appreciate it if Bricker would chime in at this point.

As to the bet; buddy, it don’t say sucker on my forehead. Charged? Probably. Convicted? Not sure. What was the name of that FBI operative who was leaking intel to the Soviets? What was he charged with?

91

We’ve been over this about 600 times.

It is NOT treason to do something that somehow assists the enemy in their war. If it were, then just about anything could be treason. Fall behind on your production of the people’s shoes? Treason. Criticize the glorious leader? That harms troop morale, and is treason. Advocate removing troops from some foreign location? That’s definately treason. Advocate pacifism? Treason. Use more than your fair share of gasoline? Treason? Come to work grumpy, without a smile on your face? Treason. Drop a gumwrapper on the streets, and therefore requiring a streetsweeper to pick up after you, when he could be at the eastern front? Treason.

If outing Valerie Plame is treason, then Cindy Sheehan and Kos are commiting treason by criticizing the war, and Ann Coulter is committing treason for making republicans look stupid. Screwing up the war effort isn’t treason. And George Bush Sr. can call it treason, but it isn’t, any more than when he said being an atheist is treason.

92

Yes it fucking well is. That’s what “aid and comfort” MEANS. Assisting the enemy in their war against the U.S. is treason. See how that works?

I’ve heard the bolded one referred to as “treason” so many times my eyes still hurt from rolling. Make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways. As for the rest: how? How are these even remotely comparable to giving up a CIA operative (who has vital, classified information) to the enemy? You’re telling me advocating passivism is the same thing? What color is the sky in your world?

If outing Valerie Plame is treason, then Cindy Sheehan and Kos are commiting treason by criticizing the war, and Ann Coulter is committing treason for making republicans look stupid. Screwing up the war effort isn’t treason. And George Bush Sr. can call it treason, but it isn’t, any more than when he said being an atheist is treason.
[/QUOTE]

93

Legally, I think there’s pretty much zero chance that Rove’s actions were treasonous. It’s helpful to distinguish between legal and ethical judgments: if someone wants to call his actions ethically treasonous, I won’t disagree nearly as strenuously (although I’ll still disagree–I think that cheapens the idea of treason). But legally, there just isn’t a case.

Daniel

94

Already did. You might want to read post #65.

95

A roving a roving since roving’s been my ruin… :stuck_out_tongue:

96

Yes, there is a vernacular meaning and a legal meaning. If someone wants to use the vernacular meaning, fine. But Maureen is clearly using the legal meaning.

Maureen: Honestly, you’re not even remotely close to being right on this. Even the Rosenbergs weren’t charged with treason. Nor was John Walker Lind . Do a search for GD and BBQP threads with “treason” in the title, and I’m pretty sure you’ll find several threads in which our resident lawyers have weighed in if you don’t believe me.

97

Wrong. Did Karl Rove adhere to the enemies of the United States by giving them aid and comfort? No he didn’t. He told a reporter that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That ain’t treason, no way, no how.

Now you’ve made me mad. I have made up my mind. Search my posts for the past 6 years, and you’ll never ever ever find me saying that criticizing George Bush or any other president is treasonous. Didn’t happen. It ain’t treason. I deserve an apology from you. Argue with me, not with some other person you’ve made up. Maybe Shodan or Rush Limbaugh said it, if so, call THEM out on it. Not me. You think just because I’m arguing with you that I must automatically agree with everything Bush and Rove and Cheney and every other Republican have ever done, ever? If I automatically agree with Bush all the time, you’d think I’d have voted for him instead of Kerry, wouldn’t you?

He didn’t give the information to the enemy! If he had got on a secret phone line and gave the info to Osama Bin Ladin, then you’d have a case. He told a reporter! Reporters are not the enemy, no matter what Rush Limbaugh says!

Are you arguing that giving classified information to a reporter is treason? Is it treason when the reporter publishes it? Is it treason when we repeat the information here on the SDMB?

If what Karl Rove or Scooter Libby allegedly did, telling reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, is treason, then just about anything and everything could be treason. See how that works? Treason becomes whatever the government says it is. But luckily for you and me, the constitution lays out what treason is, to protect us against the sorts of things that used to happen in Europe. Criticizing the King was literally treasonous. In the Soviet Union, not meeting your quota of shoe production was literally treasonous. Is that the kind of country you want? Of course not.

No one in the US has ever been prosecuted for treason for giving information to reporters. Never happened. Never will, as long as I have anything to say about it. As it should be. People have been FIRED for revealing classified information. People have been sent to jail for revealing classified information. But they have never been charged with treason, because THAT WOULD BE UNAMERICAN.

98

Maybe a cookie?

Actually, it isn’t sexual, but how interesting that the idea should occur to you.

You want me, don’t you?

:wink:

Regards,
Shodan

99

No, I have not, to the best of my ability to recall and based on a quick search of my posts.

Polycarp accused me of being a “bad American” because I think Jimmy Carter is a buffoon, and I think some politician or other said something like it (unless he was talking about criticizing the war, or it was mischaracterized by some fat head or other - I read about it on the Dope).

But no, obviously criticizing the President isn’t treasonous. Unless it means “a politician doing something I don’t like”, as seems to be desired in the case of Karl Rove.

It seems mostly like a catch phrase that the Usual Suspects hereabouts like to trot out upon being disagreed with. As we see here.

Regards,
Shodan

100

Not treason.

At the time the Constitution was written, the crime of treason was a very specific one. Not only did it permit the death penalty as punishment, but it mandated an especially heinous method of execution specifically designed to maximize the suffering of the treasonous actor. In Blackstone’s Commentaries, he notes that the punishment for treason was that the traitor was to be “hanged by the neck, then cut down alive,” that “his entrails [are then] taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive,” “that his head [is] cut off,” and that his “body [is then] divided into four parts.”

At common law, treason by levying war and adhering to the enemy is “high treason.” See US v. Kawakita, 108 F.Supp. 627, 631 (S.D.Cal.1952); US v. Greiner, 26 F. Cas. 36, 38 (E.D.Pa.1861) ("[T]he two species of treason mentioned in the constitution are described in it in language borrowed from that of the English statute of treasons.").

For a punishment of such magnitude, the elements of the crime are strictly construed, especially since the crime carries “peculiar intimidation and stigma”
with considerable “potentialities … as a political epithet.” (Quoting William Hurst, Treason in the United States (Pt. II), 58 Harv.L.Rev. 395, 424-25 (1945).)

The intent was to limit the most severe penalties to the specific acts of levying war against the United States, or adhering to enemies of the United States. The Constitutional Convention delegates “regarded the effort to limit the application of the death penalty for subversive crimes as the central motive of the restrictive definition of treason”, Hurst, supra.

Today treason continues to be punishable by death. Other crimes under federal law, such as seditious conspiracy, 18 USC § 2384, and rebellion and insurrection, 18 USC § 2353, garner maximum penalty of imprisonment and fines only. The functions of the Treason Clause are thus to limit the crime of treason to betrayals of allegiance that are substantial, amounting to levying war or giving comfort to enemies, and to require sufficiently reliable evidence. Treason, in other words, may not be found on the basis of mere mutterings of discontent or critcicism, or relatively innocuous opposition or minor acts that may aid an enemy. (See US v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, (2nd Cir. 1999).)

For these reasons, treason – legal treason – is simply not found in acts such as we’re discussing here.