4 ms·

1) You're assuming this ONLY discusses the possibility of the US declaring war via tweet. The article clearly talks about ANY country that could declare war via

by diego 7y ago

1) You're assuming this ONLY discusses the possibility of the US declaring war via tweet. The article clearly talks about ANY country that could declare war via tweet. 2) It specifically addresses the question of the US and Congress. https://abe-winter.github.io/2019/10/18/tweason.html#can-a-tweet-declare-war https://abe-winter.github.io/2019/10/18/tweason.html#can-a-t...

time0ut 7y ago
Would it be possible for Twitter to commit treason against another country at all?
- diego 7y ago
  I don't suppose it's a company that commits treason, rather an individual making a decision. If so, it may depend on the nationality of the decider. What if, say, the Twitter community manager for France decided to take down such a tweet by a French official.
tptacek 7y ago
Yes, its analysis of the US and Congress is, I believe, simply wrong. The President can effectively levy war in the 21st century without Congress, but such "wars" do not create the conditions required for treason. Treason is incumbent on war being properly declared. Even John Walker Lindh couldn't be charged with treason, and he had the weight of an actual AUMF against him.
- Retric 7y ago
  You can be convicted of treason without a war being declared. Walter Allen being the most obvious case. https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/205 https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/205 What makes this case so interesting is it was treason vs a specific state not the entire USA.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    See my original comment on this thread. The definition of "declared or open war", the conditions required in the US, go back into English Common Law.
    - Retric 7y ago
      We can quibble about the open war vs the entire US on that one, but here conspiracy is also considered sufficient grounds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy Though not convicted, that was a question of evidence rather than if conspiracy was sufficient grounds for a conviction.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        The Supreme Court cases that clarified this matter occurred after the Burr affair.
        Retric 7y ago
        So you have some specifics in mind? I assume you’re referring to Ex parte Bollman “That levying an army may or may not be treason, and that this depends on the intention with which it is levied, and on the point to which the parties have advanced, has been also stated. The mere enlisting of men, without assembling them, is not levying war. The question then is, whether this evidence proves Col. Burr to have advanced so far in levying an army as actually to have assembled them.” In the Burr case no men where actually assembled. “No evidence existed that either Bollman or Swartwout engaged in any military activity or violent acts.” I could be misreading this but I believe the military acts of a non violent nature could still qualify under this definition. Though, it’s stretching the definition of war to call such non violent acts war, such is the way of such things. In any case I believe the line for treason is close to but before what could be called “open war.”
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The President can effectively levy war in the 21st century without Congress, but such "wars" do not create the conditions required for treason They arguably do, if either the war is levied under the authority of a Congressional aujorization, conditional or others, including the War Power Act, which effectively includes an open-ended conditional declaration of war, or the other side fights back, in which case it is levying war against the United States making it an enemy whether or not war is declared. In practice, the former condition will almost invariably be adhered to though every President has denied it's Constitutional necessity (the NATO-Serbia war under Clinton being a notable exception), and the latter is even more certain. > Even John Walker Lindh couldn't be charged with treason He wasn't charged with treason, that doesn't mean he couldn't have been.

by diego 7y ago

time0ut 7y ago

Would it be possible for Twitter to commit treason against another country at all?

diego 7y ago
I don't suppose it's a company that commits treason, rather an individual making a decision. If so, it may depend on the nationality of the decider. What if, say, the Twitter community manager for France decided to take down such a tweet by a French official.

tptacek 7y ago

Yes, its analysis of the US and Congress is, I believe, simply wrong. The President can effectively levy war in the 21st century without Congress, but such "wars" do not create the conditions required for treason. Treason is incumbent on war being properly declared. Even John Walker Lindh couldn't be charged with treason, and he had the weight of an actual AUMF against him.

Retric 7y ago
You can be convicted of treason without a war being declared. Walter Allen being the most obvious case. https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/205 https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/205 What makes this case so interesting is it was treason vs a specific state not the entire USA.
- tptacek 7y ago
  See my original comment on this thread. The definition of "declared or open war", the conditions required in the US, go back into English Common Law.
  - Retric 7y ago
    We can quibble about the open war vs the entire US on that one, but here conspiracy is also considered sufficient grounds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy Though not convicted, that was a question of evidence rather than if conspiracy was sufficient grounds for a conviction.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The Supreme Court cases that clarified this matter occurred after the Burr affair.
      - Retric 7y ago
        So you have some specifics in mind? I assume you’re referring to Ex parte Bollman “That levying an army may or may not be treason, and that this depends on the intention with which it is levied, and on the point to which the parties have advanced, has been also stated. The mere enlisting of men, without assembling them, is not levying war. The question then is, whether this evidence proves Col. Burr to have advanced so far in levying an army as actually to have assembled them.” In the Burr case no men where actually assembled. “No evidence existed that either Bollman or Swartwout engaged in any military activity or violent acts.” I could be misreading this but I believe the military acts of a non violent nature could still qualify under this definition. Though, it’s stretching the definition of war to call such non violent acts war, such is the way of such things. In any case I believe the line for treason is close to but before what could be called “open war.”
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The President can effectively levy war in the 21st century without Congress, but such "wars" do not create the conditions required for treason They arguably do, if either the war is levied under the authority of a Congressional aujorization, conditional or others, including the War Power Act, which effectively includes an open-ended conditional declaration of war, or the other side fights back, in which case it is levying war against the United States making it an enemy whether or not war is declared. In practice, the former condition will almost invariably be adhered to though every President has denied it's Constitutional necessity (the NATO-Serbia war under Clinton being a notable exception), and the latter is even more certain. > Even John Walker Lindh couldn't be charged with treason He wasn't charged with treason, that doesn't mean he couldn't have been.