9 ms·
Treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution and it's a quite difficult bar to cross.
by dnautics 8y ago
Treason has a specific definition in the us Constitution and it's a quite difficult bar to cross.
- danso 8y agoThe Iraq War leak suggested war crimes, but not treason IIRC: https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-press/ https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-press/
- resters 8y agoLying about the war crimes was treason in my view
- matthewowen 8y ago"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
- resters 8y agoWhat better aid to our enemies than spending trillions on a futile war?
- gamblor956 8y agoGenerally, spending too much money to bomb the shit out of your enemies is not considering providing aid to them....anywhere.
- resters 8y agoYou are assuming that the groups we are told are our enemies are actually enemies, and that they are the most significant enemies.
- gamblor956 8y agoI assume none of that. I know people who died in 9/11, people who died in Mumbai, and people who died in the San Bernardino shooting. I don't need to be told by anyone that the terrorist cowards behind those bombings are our enemies--that much was obvious from them bombing us.
- resters 8y agoAnd you think the dollars spent on the wars have actually done anything to prevent future attacks such as the ones you mention?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Veen 8y agoYour view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.
- roywiggins 8y agoNot just the law, the US Constitution.
- paulcole 8y agoNot necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
- Veen 8y agoJury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).
- AnimalMuppet 8y agopaulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.
- vonmoltke 8y ago...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoIt's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.
- Svip 8y agoHow can it be treason, when he's not a US citizen?
- resters 8y agoI’m referring to the officials not Julian.
- resters 8y agoLying about a war for corrupt reasons surely qualifies.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y agoNo, it doesn't. It certainly qualifies as official malfeasance, but treason in the US is defined narrowly in the Constitution (as an express reaction against “treason” being expansively applied.)
- resters 8y agoWhat better way to give aid to our enemies than to conduct an expensive war on false pretenses and illegally classify information that would have likely led to public distaste for the war? Imagine if the leaks showed that the officials wasted money in some other way such as taking gold reserves and destroying them in a nuclear explosion, or sending gold reserves to cronies in other nations. Theft is theft. Our enemies arguably want us to waste money on unnecessary wars. The officials exposed by Assange were acting in concert with our enemies.
- gamblor956 8y agoWhat better way to give aid to our enemies than to conduct an expensive war on false pretenses and illegally classify information that would have likely led to public distaste for the war? Giving money to our enemies would be a better way to give them aid. Or weapons. Or supplies. Or pretty much anything, really. One thing which is not giving aid to our enemies is to fight a war against them, on whatever pretenses, which results in massive quantities of said enemy's soldiers dying. That's almost exactly the opposite of "aiding" our enemies. You may disagree with the efficiency of our military expenditures, but inefficiency in prosecuting military action is not even remotely the same thing as providing aid to our enemies.
- 8y ago