5 ms·

Probably worth noting that deliberately aiding the Chinese military is not treason in America right now because America and China aren't at war. It might be ot

Probably worth noting that deliberately aiding the Chinese military is not treason in America right now because America and China aren't at war. It might be other things: unpatriotic, espionage, etc. But not treason itself. Even the Rosenbergs didn't get convicted of treason (America and the Soviet Union were not actually at war. It was illegal to give nuclear secrets to the Soviets, but it wasn't treason.) So generally whenever somebody in America mentions treason, they're being hyperbolic or misleading, or have themselves been mislead. Generally.

reallydude 7y ago
> So generally whenever somebody in America mentions treason, they're being hyperbolic or misleading, Some people simply don't need to understand the distinction between similarly used terms. In the end, prosecutors can file multiple charges but practically pick and choose based on a variety of factors.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > "Some people simply don't need to understand the distinction between similarly used terms." e.g. [...] or have themselves been mislead There won't be any treason charges here. Federal prosecutors know that wouldn't work, so they won't bother trying it. Whether or not Thiel knows this, I cannot say.
- jkaplowitz 7y ago
  Prosecutors in the US can't validly charge treason in all but the most extremely rare circumstances, though. "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." (This comes straight from the Constitution, hence the weird capitalization and punctuation.) The Supreme Court has clarified the definition above, and indeed, it can't apply where no actual assemblage of force against the US was being prepared or used by either the defendant or the enemy to which one is being accused of adhering and giving aid or comfort. Maayyybe the Supreme Court will extend this to cyberwarfare, but that's hard to predict and they certainly haven't yet. Anyway, regardless, the two-witness requirement for every single overt act involved is a very high bar.
RaceWon 7y ago
> So generally whenever somebody in America mentions treason, they're being hyperbolic or misleading Let's face it, vocabulary in main stream America is on the table with No chance of resuscitation. I mean according to popular news sites, there are probably 97 races on Earth now, and if one white gal thinks that immigration on the southern border should be enforced than she is a racist... I didn't know that being from Mexico was a race different than my own (I'm an adopted American most likely of Irish descent).

reallydude 7y ago

> So generally whenever somebody in America mentions treason, they're being hyperbolic or misleading, Some people simply don't need to understand the distinction between similarly used terms. In the end, prosecutors can file multiple charges but practically pick and choose based on a variety of factors.

darkpuma 7y ago
> "Some people simply don't need to understand the distinction between similarly used terms." e.g. [...] or have themselves been mislead There won't be any treason charges here. Federal prosecutors know that wouldn't work, so they won't bother trying it. Whether or not Thiel knows this, I cannot say.
jkaplowitz 7y ago
Prosecutors in the US can't validly charge treason in all but the most extremely rare circumstances, though. "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." (This comes straight from the Constitution, hence the weird capitalization and punctuation.) The Supreme Court has clarified the definition above, and indeed, it can't apply where no actual assemblage of force against the US was being prepared or used by either the defendant or the enemy to which one is being accused of adhering and giving aid or comfort. Maayyybe the Supreme Court will extend this to cyberwarfare, but that's hard to predict and they certainly haven't yet. Anyway, regardless, the two-witness requirement for every single overt act involved is a very high bar.

RaceWon 7y ago

> So generally whenever somebody in America mentions treason, they're being hyperbolic or misleading Let's face it, vocabulary in main stream America is on the table with No chance of resuscitation. I mean according to popular news sites, there are probably 97 races on Earth now, and if one white gal thinks that immigration on the southern border should be enforced than she is a racist... I didn't know that being from Mexico was a race different than my own (I'm an adopted American most likely of Irish descent).