I think a reasonable case can be made that a state (or a non-state actor such as ISIS) becomes an enemy through their own actions by levying an intentional military attack on the United States.
Though Congress on December 8, 1941 retroactively declared a state of war against the Empire of Japan effective since December 7, 1941 it is reasonable to argue that had an American citizen given military aid to the Japanese during the initial attack on Peral Harbor that such act would be treason and not merely espionage.
Similarly the non-state actor group that attacked the US Consulate in Libya beginning on September 11, 2012 was, IMHO, an enemy of the United States for the purposes of Treason even if the group could not be immediately identified at the time as definitely ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or other. Therein lies the faint nugget of difference that conspiracy theorists cling to when they espouse that Hillary Clinton should be locked up for treason. *If *she had given aid to this enemy group during this attack then I would call that treason. But she did not. She made decisions based upon the information she had and the resources available, and just because the outcome of certain decisions by US leadership results in failure or death does not mean that those decisions rise to the level of treason.
And just because many do not like that President Trump shared information with the Russians does not mean that such an act rises to the level of treason and it does not mean Russia is our enemy. We are not in a shooting war with Russia. We are cooperating with Russia in our efforts to deal with ISIS in Syria, even if we don’t agree with Russia about what should be done about the Assad regime. So to a limited extent we are even allies with Russia.
All other nations are enemies. If you steal our deepest secrets about nuclear weapons technology and sell it to Canada, then you have committed treason.
While it may be true that, today, Canada is our friend, there is no guarantee that they will be tomorrow or stay that way if they should discover our weaknesses. If they have decided to purchase this information, illicitly, then clearly they are not moving with continued peace in mind. We are all rivals in the global space.
I think the notion that we need to be in a shooting war in order to consider another nation an adversary or an enemy is outdated. Today’s weapons include cyber attacks, among other things.
Jonathon Pollard was charged with and pled to violations of the Espionage Act (18 USC 37) for providing information to Israel, which is inarguably a US ally. While this isn’t “treason” per se, espionage is inarguably a treasonous act.
The Russian Confederation may not be an enemy per se in the sense that we are not in declared war or open military conflict with Russia, but given that they are actively spying on the United States (confirmed), compromising cybersecurity (strongly suspected with credible evidence), and attempting to influence the democratic elections of our country and that of other NATO allies (alleged with credible evidence) we could hardly call them a special ally. We do not perform joint military operations or engage in other partnered activities except in the very limited sense of supporting the ISS. That we have trade and diplomatic relations with Russia is neither here nor there; we had trade (such as it was given the paucity of their industrial and energy output) and diplomatic relations with the former Soviet Union, and if they weren’t an enemy that we spent enormous sums of money deterring and challenging in proxy conflicts, I don’t know what is.
If any other government employee gave Russian officials classified information it would inarguably be regarded as a violation of the Espionage Act and a treasonous action. The only reason this is even a question is that the authority of the Office of the President may allow the holder to bypass statutes to protect against espionage and treason, because we assume that someone who has been elected to the highest office in the land is above selling out the security of our nation and that of our close allies. That Trump has almost certainly done so is just another in a long line of evidence that Donald Trump is not normal. When the statement “…a Klan-backed misogynistic Internet troll is going to be giving the next State of the Union address, and that is not normal,…” is an understatement, things are beyond, “…fucked up!”
This! You just know lawyers are gonna be involved! I’ve been googling around trying to find a good legal def of enemy as related to treason ans this is the best I could find so far
which seems, to me, quite vague. What are “hostilities”? How were persons like the Rosenbergs accused of treason? We were never officially at war with the Soviet Union. Was the fact that they were allied with NK enough for them to be considered an enemy? If so, when did their enemy status end? Since there was never an “official” end to the “Korean conflict” does that mean we’re still at war? Clearly NK continues it’s aggressive stance toward USA, is Russia still an ally with them. Does that make Russia still an enemy of USA?. . . the questions go on and on. Are ther clear answers to any of these questions? or is the topic vague on purpose to give the govt room to maneuver?
I hope we are all in full-on legal mode here, so I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to draw between “treason” and “a treasonous act”. I’m only interested in the former in this thread. Actual treason, that will stand up in court. Spying for Israel cannot be considered treason as Israel is one of closest allies. If our closest ally is also an enemy, then the term “enemy” has no legal meaning. And I don’t believe that to be the case.
I quite agree that a shooting conflict is not necessary for an adversary to possibly be considered an enemy as it regards the matter of treason. I was making the point that, again IMHO, a declaration of war is not necessary in order to consider a foreign state (or non-state actor) to be an enemy. Someone starts shooting as us then they are the enemy even if we have not gotten around to the formalities of declaring a state of war.
It would be quite hard to say all countries that conduct espionage against the United States are enemies. Even allies have done so. And the United States has spied on its allies though it would be hard to argue that the US was declaring those states enemies.
Disclosures of information to Russia may rise to the level of espionage if done by someone without authority to release such information. But we are not at war with Russia and they are not our enemy, thus such disclosures are not treason.
“Treason” like “high crimes and misdemeanors”, is essentially in the eye of the beholder. But giving away classified information that undermines the security of the United States or its allies to an opposing nation to further which furthers interests would be considered treason. Whether the US Congress regards it as treason is a matter of politics rather than legal fact.
As for whether Russia is an enemy, the Russian government is currently run by a former KGB agent in a corrupt autocracy who has encouraged his military forces to challenge US presence in international waters, has ordered Russian signal intelligence ships to troll just outside US territorial waters, and has used Russian intelligence resources to commit cyberattacks on US systems and influence the US election. I’m not sure what other criteria you’d need to label them an “enemy” but I’m open to suggestions.
OK. If we call Russia an enemy, then how are companies who do business there not “aiding and giving comfort” to the enemy? FYI, I’m not arguing with you, I just dont like all the ambiguity in the statute. Where is the bright line between friendly and treasonous acts as they relate to (not only) Russia?
Considering less than 30 people in American history have every been charted with treason, I’m not sure the OP’s semantic concerns are valid. Mostly people are charged with other, more broad crimes like espionage or violations of specific laws, which AFAIK, doesn’t have to be against a specific “enemy”. i.e selling nuclear secrets to Canada will probably get you into as much trouble as selling them to China.
That’s nice. Perhaps you could start a thread about that. But as it is, it’s quite common for folks around here to throw around the “T” word, so I wanted to discuss how that actually plays out. If you’re not interested, I’ll get over it.
This is actually a pretty tangled question, once you start considering it.
Take China. There are certain types of technology you can’t sell there, because we don’t want to share it and we don’t trust China not to pirate our tech. We trade with them. In fact, they are our second largest trading partner after the EU. They undertake state-sponsored cyber-attacks against us. I’m sure we do the same. Are we friendly? Not exactly, but they seem unlikely to drag us into a war. In fact, they may help us prevent one with North Korea. You could call us countries with mutual interests who also have areas of extreme disagreement, and that would be a more accurate description. Our relationship with China is at one point on a continuum.
Further down the continuum we find Russia. We have sanctions against them. Our NATO obligations might draw us into direct conflict with them if they continue pushing their border expansion. They have attacked our electoral process, and the (now former) FBI Director stated they were the greatest threat to the US that currently exists. Friend? Ally? I don’t think so. Adversary seems to fit.
Considering the question of treason and Trump, then, I think you can certainly make the argument that Russia is an “enemy”. It’s the second part of the equation, “the aid and comfort” part that I’m not certain about. If it turns out that Trump bargained ending sanctions (or “giving” Crimea to Russia) in exchange for help with the election (or money or whatever), would that rise to treason? That type of exchange could be considered aid. How about code-word, classified information, is that aid? It sounds like in the past this type of activity has been considered espionage and not treason, so possibly not. High crimes and misdemeanors perhaps? IOW, I think we need to wait and see what evidence comes out before we can know whether or not Trump has committed treason. Based on what we know now, I don’t think we can reach that conclusion.
I think where we trip up in this discussion is precisely the difference between the colloquial usage of treason (a betrayal of country) and the legal definition. IANAL, but I’m guessing that this is not uncommon with a variety of crimes.
If they didn’t define the term, then, yes. If you don’t want something to be vague, you define exactly what you mean by the term.
There would be a line saying “An enemy of the United States is defined as…”, and then we could use that criteria to figure it out.
Leaving that out allows the executive and judicial system to interpret it to fit the situation. Which, unfortunately, sucks when it’s being used against one of those.
I mean, you’re discussing a criminal law that does not definitely make clear, in a way that ordinary people can understand, what conduct is prohibited, and “in the eye of the beholder” might encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Should laws like that stand?
Well no, or at least not anymore.
Like most problems on Earth, for this one you can “Blame the British” for causing it. Historically in England, Treason was essentially (if not legally) whatever the King said it was. This of course never was a problem since His Majesty would never employ His Power arbitrarily and capriciously. sarcasm, King Edward III had a Knight convicted of treason for beating up a “Kings Subject”.
Legal reforms eventually curtailed the power. The two most important of these are the Treason Act 1351 and the Treason Act 1695. The former defined High treason as either sleeping with the King’s wife, unmarried daughter or daughter in law and for the rest of it it was only Treason if "if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm" or "if a man be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere*. More importantly it stated that the list of Treasonable Actions it listed were exhaustive.
The second major reform was the treason Act of 1695, which permitted Counsel and also required two witnesses to Treasonious action to convict.
It is these two statutes which form the basis of Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.
Of course, in both countries the practical effect is limited. Parliament and Congress could (and have) create new crimes with punishments which are the same as for Treason and call them something else.
But to say that Treason is in the eyes of the beholder is to misrepresent the historical development to the maximum extent possible.
See Cramer v United States 325 U.S. 1 (1945) for a discussion on the development of the law.
*There were some other treason forms, which had been repealed or had fallen into disuse by the time of the the US Constitution ratification, or were not applicable to the New Republic, so are not discussed.