treason
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.--- Article III, Sec. 3 of the United States Constitution
Did you know that there have only been 7 people in the history of the United States convicted of treason? The Supreme Court never even reviewed a treason conviction until 1945, a full 169 years after the birth of America. That particular case was Cramer v. United States. Seven other cases soon followed, however. Two of those cases were Supreme Court cases, and the other 5 were U.S. Courts of Appeal cases (FYI: Haupt v. U.S.; Chandler v. U.S.; Gillars v. U.S.; Best v. U.S.; Burgman v. U.S.; D'Aquino v. U.S.; and Kawakita v. U.S.).
Those 8 federal court cases establish a 4-prong test that must be met in order to secure a treason conviction. The prosecutor must prove these 4 elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. There was an overt act (can't just be speech).
2. The overt act was witnessed by 2 or more people.
3. The overt act manifested an intent to betray the United States (this can be inferred from the overt act itself).
4. The overt act provided aid and comfort to the enemy.
The Gillars case (the case of Axis Sally) gives a good example of the first "prong":
" . . . that on a day between January 1, 1944 and June 6, 1944, the exact date to the Grand Jurors being unknown, said defendant, at Berlin, Germany, did speak into a microphone in a recording studio of the German Radio Broadcasting Company, and thereby did participate in a phonographic recording and cause to be phonographically recorded a radio drama entitled “Vision of Invasion,” said defendant then and there well knowing that said recorded radio drama was to be subsequently broadcast by the German Radio Broadcasting Company to the United States and to its citizens and soldiers at home and abroad as an element of German propaganda and an instrument of psychological warfare."
The second prong was dealt with in the Kawakita case:
Each witness who testified [against Kawakita] to an overt act was, however, an eye-witness to the commission of that act. This overt act . . . was testified to by thirteen witnesses. But they all agreed that [Kawakita] struck Grant. There is no doubt . . . the witnesses were all talking about the same incident and were describing the same conduct on [Kawakita’s] part.
The third prong was addressed by the Cramer case:
There was ample evidence for the jury that Cramer had a treasonable intent. The trial court charged the jury that “criminal intent and knowledge, being a mental state, are not susceptible of being proved by direct evidence, and therefore you must infer the nature of the defendant’s intent and knowledge from all the circumstances. So if you believe that the defendant performed acts which by their nature gave aid and comfort to the enemy, knowing or believing him to be an enemy, then you must find that he had criminal intent, since he intended to do the act forbidden by the law. The consequences of his acts are too serious and enormous to admit of such a plea. He must be taken to intend the consequences of his own voluntary act . . . . For the same reasons a man cannot slip through our treason law because his aid to those who would destroy his country was prompted by a desire to “accommodate a friend.”
The fourth prong was addressed by the Chandler case. In that decision, the Court ruled that it was not necessary to prove that any one single "overt act" provided aid and comfort to the enemy. All of the acts could be viewed together to see if, cumulatively, they provided aid and comfort to the enemy:
These services consisted not merely of the culminating act of making a recording, but also of the necessary preliminary acts directed to that end. They were all part and parcel of the totality of aid and comfort given by the course of conduct as a whole. Attending a conference of commentators, at the summons of the Chief of the U.S.A. Zone, in order that directives as to the current propaganda line might be relayed and discussed and individual assignments made, could reasonably be found to have been of aid and comfort to the enemy. The proof under overt acts 4 and 5 established Chandler’s participation in two such conferences.
That's how treason is viewed by the federal courts, based on their interpretation of Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
Let me be very clear in what I am about to say. I believe that Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha are guilty of treason. I believe that their actions during the last week rise to the standard established by judicial precedent. I'll explain why.
First off, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I have no problem whatsoever with members of the Democrat Party disagreeing with Pres. Bush over Iraq. Good grief, I disagree with the president's war policy! I believe that the president has waged a largely incompetent war effort, and that this incompetence has cost us lives. I believe that the President's war advisors (particularly Rumsfeld) have given him terrible advice. The President has fought this war with one arm (militarily) tied behind his back, causing the war to last about 2 years longer than it had to last. I believe that the Democrats, as the opposition party, have a constitutional and a moral obligation to critically examine and disagree with the President's policies. The Constitution gives Congress the following options in their disagreement with Bush's war policy:
1. Eliminate funding for the war.
2. Make speeches to the American people to drum up opposition to the war.
3. Refuse to confirm military appointments for people whose ideas Congress disagrees with. That forces the President to appoint people that agree with Congress.
The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to usurp the power of the Commander-In-Chief by passing laws telling the President how troops can be used. Look at the following:
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/16/152147.shtml
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/17/144018.shtml
The strategy is clear. Rep. Murtha and Speaker Pelosi intend to attach language to the military appropriations bill that would force the President to keep troops home for longer periods of rest, and to not send troops at all unless impossible benchmarks are met by the troops. Murtha has stated publically that the purpose of the bill is to make it impossible for the troops to win in Iraq. Murtha has also stated that, if the President vetos the bill, Murtha will get bills passed that will shut off funding for all manner of Pentagon programs.
This is an overt act.
The act has been witnessed by the whole country.
The act is designed to cause American defeat in Iraq, so that the Democrats can win the presidential election in 2008.
The act absolutely gives aid and comfort to the insurgents fighting for control of Iraq. It doesn't make them uncomfortable, does it?
President Bush needs to read up on what Abraham Lincoln did to preserve national security during the Civil War. He then needs to grow a backbone and have Pelosi and Murtha arrested and prosecuted for treason. Dissent is great. Opposition is good for the country. An adversarial system between the two parties, within the framework of the Constitution, is vital to our national wellbeing. Treason is punishable by prison time and/or death. Pelosi and Murtha are traitors.
www.conservative.org/pressroom/2006/070218ires.htm
Did you know that there have only been 7 people in the history of the United States convicted of treason? The Supreme Court never even reviewed a treason conviction until 1945, a full 169 years after the birth of America. That particular case was Cramer v. United States. Seven other cases soon followed, however. Two of those cases were Supreme Court cases, and the other 5 were U.S. Courts of Appeal cases (FYI: Haupt v. U.S.; Chandler v. U.S.; Gillars v. U.S.; Best v. U.S.; Burgman v. U.S.; D'Aquino v. U.S.; and Kawakita v. U.S.).
Those 8 federal court cases establish a 4-prong test that must be met in order to secure a treason conviction. The prosecutor must prove these 4 elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. There was an overt act (can't just be speech).
2. The overt act was witnessed by 2 or more people.
3. The overt act manifested an intent to betray the United States (this can be inferred from the overt act itself).
4. The overt act provided aid and comfort to the enemy.
The Gillars case (the case of Axis Sally) gives a good example of the first "prong":
" . . . that on a day between January 1, 1944 and June 6, 1944, the exact date to the Grand Jurors being unknown, said defendant, at Berlin, Germany, did speak into a microphone in a recording studio of the German Radio Broadcasting Company, and thereby did participate in a phonographic recording and cause to be phonographically recorded a radio drama entitled “Vision of Invasion,” said defendant then and there well knowing that said recorded radio drama was to be subsequently broadcast by the German Radio Broadcasting Company to the United States and to its citizens and soldiers at home and abroad as an element of German propaganda and an instrument of psychological warfare."
The second prong was dealt with in the Kawakita case:
Each witness who testified [against Kawakita] to an overt act was, however, an eye-witness to the commission of that act. This overt act . . . was testified to by thirteen witnesses. But they all agreed that [Kawakita] struck Grant. There is no doubt . . . the witnesses were all talking about the same incident and were describing the same conduct on [Kawakita’s] part.
The third prong was addressed by the Cramer case:
There was ample evidence for the jury that Cramer had a treasonable intent. The trial court charged the jury that “criminal intent and knowledge, being a mental state, are not susceptible of being proved by direct evidence, and therefore you must infer the nature of the defendant’s intent and knowledge from all the circumstances. So if you believe that the defendant performed acts which by their nature gave aid and comfort to the enemy, knowing or believing him to be an enemy, then you must find that he had criminal intent, since he intended to do the act forbidden by the law. The consequences of his acts are too serious and enormous to admit of such a plea. He must be taken to intend the consequences of his own voluntary act . . . . For the same reasons a man cannot slip through our treason law because his aid to those who would destroy his country was prompted by a desire to “accommodate a friend.”
The fourth prong was addressed by the Chandler case. In that decision, the Court ruled that it was not necessary to prove that any one single "overt act" provided aid and comfort to the enemy. All of the acts could be viewed together to see if, cumulatively, they provided aid and comfort to the enemy:
These services consisted not merely of the culminating act of making a recording, but also of the necessary preliminary acts directed to that end. They were all part and parcel of the totality of aid and comfort given by the course of conduct as a whole. Attending a conference of commentators, at the summons of the Chief of the U.S.A. Zone, in order that directives as to the current propaganda line might be relayed and discussed and individual assignments made, could reasonably be found to have been of aid and comfort to the enemy. The proof under overt acts 4 and 5 established Chandler’s participation in two such conferences.
That's how treason is viewed by the federal courts, based on their interpretation of Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
Let me be very clear in what I am about to say. I believe that Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha are guilty of treason. I believe that their actions during the last week rise to the standard established by judicial precedent. I'll explain why.
First off, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I have no problem whatsoever with members of the Democrat Party disagreeing with Pres. Bush over Iraq. Good grief, I disagree with the president's war policy! I believe that the president has waged a largely incompetent war effort, and that this incompetence has cost us lives. I believe that the President's war advisors (particularly Rumsfeld) have given him terrible advice. The President has fought this war with one arm (militarily) tied behind his back, causing the war to last about 2 years longer than it had to last. I believe that the Democrats, as the opposition party, have a constitutional and a moral obligation to critically examine and disagree with the President's policies. The Constitution gives Congress the following options in their disagreement with Bush's war policy:
1. Eliminate funding for the war.
2. Make speeches to the American people to drum up opposition to the war.
3. Refuse to confirm military appointments for people whose ideas Congress disagrees with. That forces the President to appoint people that agree with Congress.
The Constitution DOES NOT give Congress the power to usurp the power of the Commander-In-Chief by passing laws telling the President how troops can be used. Look at the following:
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/16/152147.shtml
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/17/144018.shtml
The strategy is clear. Rep. Murtha and Speaker Pelosi intend to attach language to the military appropriations bill that would force the President to keep troops home for longer periods of rest, and to not send troops at all unless impossible benchmarks are met by the troops. Murtha has stated publically that the purpose of the bill is to make it impossible for the troops to win in Iraq. Murtha has also stated that, if the President vetos the bill, Murtha will get bills passed that will shut off funding for all manner of Pentagon programs.
This is an overt act.
The act has been witnessed by the whole country.
The act is designed to cause American defeat in Iraq, so that the Democrats can win the presidential election in 2008.
The act absolutely gives aid and comfort to the insurgents fighting for control of Iraq. It doesn't make them uncomfortable, does it?
President Bush needs to read up on what Abraham Lincoln did to preserve national security during the Civil War. He then needs to grow a backbone and have Pelosi and Murtha arrested and prosecuted for treason. Dissent is great. Opposition is good for the country. An adversarial system between the two parties, within the framework of the Constitution, is vital to our national wellbeing. Treason is punishable by prison time and/or death. Pelosi and Murtha are traitors.
www.conservative.org/pressroom/2006/070218ires.htm
posted by hondo at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home