John, fair enough.
FWIW Google affords me this list of treasonous offenses. Sections 2381 and 2384 may apply. Sections 2387 seems quite applicable in general terms, but not in detail.
Hrrmph, we may need a thread just to define what exactly we’re betting on. 
I’m in for a buck. I really don’t think Rove will get charged with treason with the whole weight of the Bush admin. fighting it, so it’s kind of a sucker bet. But the cost to me is very small, the cost to you is very large, so I feel the potential reward, however remote, is worth the tiny risk. You’re on for one big American greenback.
Fighting what? How many Senate Democrats are calling for a charge of treason to be leveled against Rove? (Forget the House-- you can always find at least one nut in that chamber to say just about anything.)
I didn’t say in which direction the odds would be calculated. )
OK, you’re on. As soon as we figure out how one goes about getting charged with treason, per my discussion with squeegee, above.
Data point: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. The Rosenbergs were convicted and executed. I’d guess this counts as “treason”, yes?
John, if Rove were charged under this Act, would this be an acceptable “treason” charge?
Actually no.
I deny your major premise. Deliberately blowing the cover of a covert CIA operative is NOT treason. Go back and read the fucking constitution. YES IT SETS THE BAR HIGH. It deliberately sets the bar high. John Walker Lindh, who fought for the Taliban against the United States? Treason. Alger Hiss, who gave secret information to the Soviet Union? Treason. Karl Rove, who told several reporters that Valarie Plame was a covert CIA agent? Not treason. See, it’s simple. Do I have to quote the consititution to you for a fourth time?
I’m not an expert in the law, it may very well be that Rove is guilty of several crimes for leaking classified documents. In fact it seems highly likely that he’s guilty in fact, although it also seems unlikely to me that he would ever be convicted of one of his crimes. He should be fired, of course. And while he might have to spend time in jail I find that highly unlikely given that thousands of people in Washington do what he did every day.
Our liberal democracy couldn’t function if the officials didn’t give reporters secret information. If revealing secret information were rigidly and uniformly enforced you’d find very few high government officials still on the streets. Of course the best solution would be to stop the mania for declaring information secret, and only classify really really important information secret and then prosecute those people who reveal that information. Instead we’ve got a system where information is declared secret routinely, and government officials leak that “secret” information to journalists (and each other) routinely, and very few people get in trouble for it except when someone is made an example of, like that poor slob Jonathan Randal who was mentioned earlier, although it appears that his crime wasn’t revealing secret information as such but rather making an enemy of someone with political connections who could make trouble for him.
One more thing. Personally, I’m a little annoyed at all the accusations of bad faith being thrown around here from both sides. It doesn’t exactly help the debate when you refuse to listen to someone who argues against you, on the grounds that they are sophists who only argue the way they do because they are members of a particular political party. If you think I’m only arguing with you because I’m a brain-numbed Republican robot who thinks Saint Bush can do no wrong, ask me who I voted for in the last presidential election. Go on, ask me.
If you disagree with me, argue against me. Refusing to argue against me on the grounds that I’m arguing in bad faith doesn’t help anyone. If you only want discussions with people who agree with you, quit SDMB and go over to MoveOn.org or Free Republic.
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether Rove keeps his job, or whether he goes to prison, and I think it is completely fair to use this issue of Rove’s crimes to tar the entire Bush administration since it is indeed typical of the way Bush and his cronies operate.
But I disagree that Rove’s crimes are treason. And I think the attempt to label them treasonous is counterproductive, since they are clearly not treasonous as a quick reading of the constitution will reveal.
Let’s see what this thread turns up.
That’s not legally treason, though. That was conspiracy to commit espionage. I mean, you and John can set your bet however you like, but technically, “treason” as defined by law and the Constitution is only Section 2381.
But note that even these two guys were never charged with treason, much less convicted of it. Lindh was charged conspiring to support a terrorist organization (among other charges) with and Hiss was charged with perjury.
I know Lindh wasn’t charged with treason but I wasn’t sure about Hiss. However I was just looking for examples of people that could logically be guilty of treason…one who levyed war against the United States, and another who adhered to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Those guys commited treason even if they weren’t charged with it.
Hmmm. So if Rove were tried and executed under the Espionage Act, same as the Rosenbergs… I’d lose the bet.
I think I could live with that.
Are you saying you “informally” consider those actions “treasonous”, but there wouldn’t be enough formal evidence to meet the bar established in the constitution?
Also, what is the formal definition of “enemies”, in relation to this clause? Could domestic enemies ever qualify, or does it only apply to foreign nations or groups? For example, what if a group of US citizens conspired against the US - could they be considered “enemies” according to the treason clause? How would you meet the criteria of “adhering” if you are the enemy?
What if it is determined that the yellowcake forgeries originated in the US - would that be considered treasonous behavior? Wouldn’t conspiring to foment a war under false pretenses make you an “enemy” of the state? If not, why not?
I’m happy that the bar for treason is so high. But how to deal with my examples above? If it’s not treason, then what is it?
squeegee and EC:
Since there is a statute for treason, and it’s been applied in living memory, I see no reason to lower the bar for the bet. After all, the reason I offered such high odds was to point out the silliness of using that specific term in this instance. Rove has to be charged with treason under Federal law “TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2381, Treason” on or before Jan 1 2009. That’s the wager. Are you guys still in?
Yes, one could reasonably argue that they committed treason, as distinct from the Rove situation where, even in the wildest scenario imaginable, one could not. I just wanted to point out that they weren’t charged thusly, since one might assume from your post that they were.
Sure, what the hell. The odds are still better than winning the lotto. And if I win, I want it in quarters. 
The wildest scenario imaginable involves Rove recruiting Iranian, Italian and Israeli agents in a plot to sucker the US into invading Iraq. That could be construed as treason.
DAMN this Tinfoil! Once it’s on, it WON’T come OFF! 
Yikes! Does that mean my examples are “tinfoil”? I thought it was acceptable to speculate that the yellowcake forgeries transpired in just that way (specific nations involved yet to be determined). If so, could it be construed as treason?
Are my questions more appropriate for the General Questions forum? I have no idea if they are debatable or strict data points. Sorry for the intrusion to this thread if they are not debatable.
No, they could have been charged with treason, but the prosecutors…for whatever reasons…decided not to bother. For Lindh, he pled guilty to the lesser offenses and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. For Hiss I imagine it was because it was easier to prove perjury. He had testified that he didn’t know Whittaker Chambers, and it was shown he had known Chambers, perjury was therefore proven.
I imagine it would depend on the nature of the conspiracy. Certainly during the US Civil War treason could have been applied…however in most cases treason charges weren’t persued after the war because the goal was reconstruction not vengence. Prosecutorial discretion in other words.
No, forging documents to get the US into a war doesn’t seem to be treasonous. It isn’t levying war against the US. It isn’t adhering to US enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Forgery is a crime already, perjury is a crime already, giving out secret documents is a crime already. However, a group of people sitting down and trying to figure out a way to start a war between the US and some other country isn’t a crime in itself, it would only be criminal if they engaged in other criminal actions themselves. Note, I’m not a lawyer, for all I know there may be some applicable federal law that they could be charged under, but certainly not treason, unless they hoped that the US would lose the war.
Suppose a government official (say, Karl Rove) forged documents and suborned perjury in front of congress, all to further the goal of tricking the US into attacking Iraq. He would be guilty of forgery, he would be guilty of suborning perjury, he might be guilty of malfeasance in office, he might be guilty of any number of crimes based on what exactly he did and said when he did it or said it and what could be proven. However, it still wouldn’t be treason. It seems simple enough to charge him for the crimes he actually commited. Given that most out-and-out enemy spies who gave away nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union were never charged with treason, but rather for violations of other laws, it seems like there is no need to haul out a charge of treason for lesser offenses. If Karl Rove violated a particular law, charge him with violating the law he violated. But unless he levyed war against the United States, or adhered to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…well, it ain’t treason. No matter how egregious his crime was, or how many people died, or how much he set back the war on terrorism, or how many WMDs weren’t investigated. Malfeasance in office isn’t treason.
We set down some principles for that half a century ago:
If anyone here thinks that’s overreaching or simply inflammatory, kindly explain how.
Nah, the tinfoil comes in where the scenario gets down to Rove being the Machiavellian master of the whole evil plot. Mr. Mace would have to be extremely unlucky for things to fall out in just such a way as to leave him with a $110,000 debt; but it is possible.
Hiss was charged with perjury because the statue of limitations had run out on espionage. Cite.
But if they didn’t even charge Lindh with treason, having caught him actually bearing arms against the US, I rather doubt that Rove will be charged with treason, no matter what the facts finally wind up being. 10,000 to one seems a bit steep, but John Mace’s money seems safe to me.
The only safer bet around would be that no power on earth will stop the Usual Suspects from repeating “Rove is guilty of treason” ad infinitum - no matter what the outcome.
Regards,
Shodan
This I understand.
This is where I’m stuck. As a layman myself, I don’t see the distinction between “levying” war and “fomenting” war (or whatever semantics you can apply). And I’m still not clear on what the legal definition of “enemies” could be.