4 ms·

If a senator woke up tomorrow and wanted to help a martian terror cell that nobody knew existed, they would still be assisting an enemy of the state. It would s

If a senator woke up tomorrow and wanted to help a martian terror cell that nobody knew existed, they would still be assisting an enemy of the state. It would still be treason, and I doubt that interpretation would be a topic of debate. There are also groups who openly consider us their enemy and take action to harm the United States, even if we don't 'officially' recognize them. Some of these groups are nation-states, others are religious groups, and others and driven by [0]other ideologies. [0] http://www.ecjones.org/1963_Communist_Goals.pdf http://www.ecjones.org/1963_Communist_Goals.pdf

sudosysgen 6y ago
A communist wouldn't accept that installing communism in the US is "waging war against the US", and legal precedence in the US is that its legal to be a communist, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. In fact, even supporting the Soviet Union would not be treason. Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against. À senator helping a Martian terror state, as long as they did not engage in violence against the US, wouldn't be convicted of treason. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgotten-what-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgott...
- Proziam 6y ago
  It's not about communists, it's about groups that engage in specific behaviors such as economic warfare. > Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them - or - adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. > Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against. There has been so few cases that this interpretation isn't well-tested. Regardless, based on cases that do exist, this doesn't seem to be true. There are exceptions to what you're saying such as John Brown who was executed for treason for attempting (failing) to incite a slave revolt. Also, cases such as Fries Rebellion exist where war was never declared as far as I am able to ascertain, but the leader was convicted of treason. And then there's the case of Mary Surratt who was connected to the Lincoln assassination and executed for treason.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I said that enemy was defined as someone that is at war with the US. John Brown attacked the US government, so it isn't treason under the section of aiding and abetting an enemy, but under war against the US. Same for the Fries Rebellion, same for Mary Surratt. Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      > [0] economic warfare may reflect economic policy followed as a part of open or covert operations, cyber operations, information operations during or preceding a war. Economic warfare aims to capture or otherwise to control the supply of critical economic resources so that the military and intelligence agencies can operate at full efficiency or deprive enemy forces of those resources so that they cannot function properly. If you think people engaged in the above activities aren't engaged in a crime, then there's no point in carrying this discussion further. > Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property. This is 100% incorrect, on every level. Taking intentional action to harm an economy is a direct threat on the security of a nation and would be an objectively justifiable Casus belli. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare

sudosysgen 6y ago

A communist wouldn't accept that installing communism in the US is "waging war against the US", and legal precedence in the US is that its legal to be a communist, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. In fact, even supporting the Soviet Union would not be treason. Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against. À senator helping a Martian terror state, as long as they did not engage in violence against the US, wouldn't be convicted of treason. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgotten-what-treason-actually-means-how-it-can-ncna848651 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/americans-have-forgott...

Proziam 6y ago
It's not about communists, it's about groups that engage in specific behaviors such as economic warfare. > Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them - or - adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. > Enemies, in this context, is very narrowly defined as an entity the US has declared war against. There has been so few cases that this interpretation isn't well-tested. Regardless, based on cases that do exist, this doesn't seem to be true. There are exceptions to what you're saying such as John Brown who was executed for treason for attempting (failing) to incite a slave revolt. Also, cases such as Fries Rebellion exist where war was never declared as far as I am able to ascertain, but the leader was convicted of treason. And then there's the case of Mary Surratt who was connected to the Lincoln assassination and executed for treason.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I said that enemy was defined as someone that is at war with the US. John Brown attacked the US government, so it isn't treason under the section of aiding and abetting an enemy, but under war against the US. Same for the Fries Rebellion, same for Mary Surratt. Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    > [0] economic warfare may reflect economic policy followed as a part of open or covert operations, cyber operations, information operations during or preceding a war. Economic warfare aims to capture or otherwise to control the supply of critical economic resources so that the military and intelligence agencies can operate at full efficiency or deprive enemy forces of those resources so that they cannot function properly. If you think people engaged in the above activities aren't engaged in a crime, then there's no point in carrying this discussion further. > Economic warfare, whatever that means, against the US, is not illegal, and making it illegal is unconstitutional due to the strong protections for private property. This is 100% incorrect, on every level. Taking intentional action to harm an economy is a direct threat on the security of a nation and would be an objectively justifiable Casus belli. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare