I suspect that “enemy” is as well-defined as “obscenity” or “high crimes and misdemeanors” in terms of Consitutional law. In other words, they know it when they see it.
Perhaps a handshake acheives the necessary coefficient of friction?
Treason is pretty rarely applied category these days, anyway. Even out-and-out traitors, as in people who sell national secrets abroad, haven’t ben prosecuted under that law.
Of course, in this case I;d say the source is a bit dubious; we have satellites capable of better reconaissance.
I believe in this context “adhere” means “to remain devoted to or to be in support of something”. With regards to treason it seems to me (again, IANAL and so forth) that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that this implies that treason requires intent to help the enemies of the United States. Even the knowledge that your actions may help the enemies of the United States is insufficient if helping them is not your intent.
You mean like that thing Robert Novak did with Scooter Libby wrt outing Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent?
How about a direct answer to the situation I laid out in front of you?
I’ll answer it. No. he’s not guilty of treason.
In other words, Evil Captor, how could you be so gauche (er, sorry, that’s French…can’t use that), I mean, rude, as to possibly bring up a much more pointed and clear violation of US law committed by the neoconservative HEROES in power at the moment? So uncouth…tsk, tsk…
Even Novak wasn’t guilty of treason. It’s not a crime for him to report what a government official tells him, only for the government official to tell him.
Thank you Diogenes.
Attention partisan hacks: either both Robert Novak and Sy Hersch are traitors, or neither is.
Since the constitution, as already pointed out, defines treason as adhering to our enemies AND giving them aid and comfort, it seems obvious that neither are traitors.
It is not treason to engage in actions that have the effect of comforting the “enemy”. To believe otherwise is totalitarianism. If anything that helps “the enemy” is treason, then anyone and everyone is in danger of being executed for treason. This is Stalinism. Fall behind in your production quotas, comrade? You must be a treasonous wrecker. Insufficiently enthusiastic about our glorious soldiers? That harms our soldiers’ morale, and is treason against the state. Advocate unproven economic theories that could harm production? Treason. Cough in a public place and expose the workers to infections disease? Treason. Waste a gallon of gas, or a piece of paper? Treason.
It makes me sick. This is America. So perhaps those throwing around accusations of treason (against various and sundry) should read the Constitution and afterwards keep an embarrassed silence.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Novak’s crime was determined to be Douchebaggery (or perhaps conspiracy to commit same…I’m not really a legal scholar…)
I never said that Novak was also guilty of treason. I only noted that when discussion turned to the leaking of secrets that it was ILLEGAL to leak (not secrets that are NOT illegal to report on), the OP tried to do a little stonewalling of his own so as not to have to discuss that situation. My point was that it was the people who leaked Plame’s name and employment status who should be facing jail, not Novak, douchebag though he is. Sy Hersch, on the other hand, has done nothing illegal, or even unethical. On the contrary, he’s probably the only major reporter/columnist who’s actually following journalistic ethics by actually reporting when the government does something it shouldn’t be doing instead of licking Bush’s hand, grateful for the dribs and drabs of kibble he occasionally tosses to them.
Your utilization of the English language is praiseworthy…Now I would like to hear your thoughts if YOU were engaged by the US military intelligence to perform top secret covert actions in Iran to learn as much as possible about its nuclear infrastructure.
How upset, if at all, would you be for yourself and your fellow invaders, if a reporter for a well known US magazine told the world about what you are doing?
For a moment I would like you to omit that it is NOT a treasonable act.
The person to be upset at is not the reporter but the person who told the reporter. You don’t seem to be getting that.
Seymore Hersh has done nothing wrong either legally or ethically. He is to be commended, in fact for exposing possible criminality in the government. And if he’s bollocksed a plan for another invasion, so much the better. Give him a medal.
You have demonstrated to me that what Seymour Hersch did in this issue was NOT
scroll down…i don;t know what I did here.
treasonous. I accept that for now.
In lieu of the above, I am asking each of you: If you both had been deployed on these secret missions into Iran, what are your personal reactions, if any, to read about your secret moves being reported across the world? Thats a fair question.
If I was in Iran illegally, my reaction wouldn’t matter.
If I was an undercover operative on a legal assignment and my cover was blown, my anger would be directed at whoever told the reporter, not the reporter for doing his job.
Depending on how I viewed the current Administration’s adventurism in the region, I would either be happy that someone was exposing this before Bush and company could lead us down another rathole, or upset that someone had exposed this before Glorious Leader could direct us to fame and glory and apple pie in the Middle East.
Either way, my opinion would be just that, and Sy Hersch would still be a reporter doing his job (oy, that more of the media establishment would go back to that work ethic!).
Let me put it this way.
If we WEREN’T spying on Iran’s nuclear program I’d be outraged. It is essential that we have some idea of what they are up to. But the reality is that there is very little that we can do to stop the Iranians from building nuclear bombs if they want to.
Everyone who believes that these operations are the first stage in an invasion of Iran are just fooling themselves. We are not on the verge of an invasion of Iran. IF the Iraq invasion had gone smoothly and the Iraqis were now all smiles THEN who knows what the Bush administration would be looking into. The fact is, though, that the Iraq invasion is not over, and it has become a huge problem. We are stretched thin as it is. What forces, exactly, would we use for an invasion of Iran?
I suspect that a good part of the left-wing screaming about a potential invasion of Iran is a twisted kind of wishful thinking, on the order of people claiming to believe that George Bush is going to reauthorize the draft the day after the inauguration. If only Bush would invade Iran everyone would see how stupidly evil he was. Well, it’s not going to happen. We aren’t going to occupy Iran, we aren’t going to invade Iran, and we aren’t even going to bomb their nuclear facilities. We will make lots of noises and complain, but the reality is that bombing their nuclear facilities won’t stop them from building a bomb, and invading and occupying the country is simply impossible, even if we weren’t tied up in Iraq.
The only thing that could lead to open war with Iran is if Iran tried to invade Iraq. But of course they would not be so stupid as to do that. We may not be able to occupy Iraq, or occupy Iran, but we sure as hell can tear apart Iran’s army and destroy any offensive capability they might have.
OK, back to the stories.
One thing people don’t seem to understand is that most of these “leaks” occur for a reason. It could be that someone in the administration or the pentagon wants to send a message to someone else. The leaker could be trying to embarrass the people in favor of the covert ops, or to make sure that the ops fail, or to play some other bureaucratic game. Or the leaks could be designed to send a message to the Iranians. And the message would be that the US is prepared to take a hard line and raid or bomb Iranian nuclear facilities–even though we probably aren’t. Or maybe the message is to the american public: See, we’re doing something about the Iranian nuclear program, even though we really aren’t doing much.
I just wish people would spend a little effort to understand why these anonymously sourced articles appear. It isn’t just noble whistleblowers heroicly exposing the misdeeds of the evil Bush administration, or evil traitors selling out their countrymen for–for–for the pure evil of it, I guess. Usually these leaks are a way for someone to snipe at their bureacratic enemies, or they are planned and authorized to send a public message.
And I suspect that your suspicions are a giant crock. I suspect that “a good part of the left-wing screaming about a potential invasion of Iran” is because “a good part of the left-wing” doesn’t want the U.S. to invade Iran. I suspect that saying otherwise blatantly ignores that far more obvious explanation, and is useful only for demonizing the opposition.
You are assuming a level of competence from the Administration that has not been demonstrated in the last four years.