4 ms·

Don't know why this isn't treason. Feels like it should be...

by anonu 5y ago

AutumnCurtain 5y ago
He actually congratulated the "foreign agent" on their "bravery in serving their country": https://www.twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1447318704601976832 https://www.twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1447318704601976832
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fphhotchips 5y ago
Because it's not treason, it's (attempted) espionage. Don't worry, the US is plenty harsh on espionage.
jdavis703 5y ago
It certainly seems like it meets the definition. However, it seems excessive to charge espionage as a capital crime. Per Wikipedia: > Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.[1] This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.
- dvogel 5y ago
  Wikipedia is good for general knowlege. Legal charges are made with respect to a specific statute. In the U.S. treason will only ever be charged when we are at war.
  - throwaway81523 5y ago
    There was a US Senator (John Breckinridge) who got expelled from the Senate for committing treason during the American Civil War. He did that by skipping out of the US Senate and joining the Confederate Army. He had quite a colorful career in the Confederacy while it lasted, fled to Europe after the war, and eventually returned to the US after the US gave a general amnesty to ex-Confederates in 1868. Wow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Treason has a much narrower definition in US law. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par... I think the problem is that it needs to involve an enemy of the USA to be treason. Enemy as in declared enemy, not just hostile to.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I suspect part of that, depends on who the “foreign country” is. John Pollard[0] gave asset secrets (among other stuff) to Israel. He spent a loooooong time in the hoosegow. John Walker[1] gave sub secrets to Russia, and didn’t get a treason charge (but he may have turned state’s evidence to reduce his charge). He did die “mysteriously,” a year before he was eligible for parole. He was about as bad as you can get. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker
- blackoil 5y ago
  and today they arrested Jonathan Toebbe. If 3 is a pattern, stop giving Johns the secrets. :|
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Lectroids. They're all Lectroids.
    - busterarm 5y ago
      John Valuk is dead, he fell on his head.
rayiner 5y ago
Country was founded by a bunch of traitors covering their butts. Article III: > 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.
- lazide 5y ago
  Yes, and no - I mean yes on the founders obviously, hah, but more specifically treason was so narrowly defined because historically it was used as a general catch call for anyone doing anything the government (Crown) didn’t like. And since it had such a harsh penalty (death), it was used as a weapon of terror a lot. Clearly and narrowly defining it in the constitution was a step to stop the clear abuses they had witnessed. Look around even in this thread with everyone talking Treason.
voidfunc 5y ago
Does nobody know the actual definition of treason in the US? Its incredibly narrow.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Because there's clear definitions of various crimes. I mean why not call it terrorism? Because terrorism is a blanket term that puts people outside of the normal legal system - e.g. 'outlaws' - and has them taken off to inhumane internment camps like Guantanamo Bay, where rule of law or the Geneva convention no longer apply. Apparently. One day the US will / should be tried for war crimes, but since they have nukes and veto rights in the UN that's unlikely to happen. They've already indicated they would not hesitate to deploy troops to The Hague to extract any of their (former) leaders if they end up there.

Don't know why this isn't treason. Feels like it should be...

by anonu 5y ago

Don't know why this isn't treason. Feels like it should be...

He actually congratulated the "foreign agent" on their "bravery in serving their country": https://www.twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1447318704601976832 https://www.twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1447318704601976832

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fphhotchips 5y ago

Because it's not treason, it's (attempted) espionage. Don't worry, the US is plenty harsh on espionage.

jdavis703 5y ago

It certainly seems like it meets the definition. However, it seems excessive to charge espionage as a capital crime. Per Wikipedia: > Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.[1] This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

dvogel 5y ago
Wikipedia is good for general knowlege. Legal charges are made with respect to a specific statute. In the U.S. treason will only ever be charged when we are at war.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  There was a US Senator (John Breckinridge) who got expelled from the Senate for committing treason during the American Civil War. He did that by skipping out of the US Senate and joining the Confederate Army. He had quite a colorful career in the Confederacy while it lasted, fled to Europe after the war, and eventually returned to the US after the US gave a general amnesty to ex-Confederates in 1868. Wow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge
MattGaiser 5y ago
Treason has a much narrower definition in US law. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par... I think the problem is that it needs to involve an enemy of the USA to be treason. Enemy as in declared enemy, not just hostile to.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I suspect part of that, depends on who the “foreign country” is. John Pollard[0] gave asset secrets (among other stuff) to Israel. He spent a loooooong time in the hoosegow. John Walker[1] gave sub secrets to Russia, and didn’t get a treason charge (but he may have turned state’s evidence to reduce his charge). He did die “mysteriously,” a year before he was eligible for parole. He was about as bad as you can get. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

blackoil 5y ago
and today they arrested Jonathan Toebbe. If 3 is a pattern, stop giving Johns the secrets. :|
- mcguire 5y ago
  Lectroids. They're all Lectroids.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    John Valuk is dead, he fell on his head.

rayiner 5y ago

Country was founded by a bunch of traitors covering their butts. Article III: > 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.

lazide 5y ago
Yes, and no - I mean yes on the founders obviously, hah, but more specifically treason was so narrowly defined because historically it was used as a general catch call for anyone doing anything the government (Crown) didn’t like. And since it had such a harsh penalty (death), it was used as a weapon of terror a lot. Clearly and narrowly defining it in the constitution was a step to stop the clear abuses they had witnessed. Look around even in this thread with everyone talking Treason.

voidfunc 5y ago

Does nobody know the actual definition of treason in the US? Its incredibly narrow.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

Because there's clear definitions of various crimes. I mean why not call it terrorism? Because terrorism is a blanket term that puts people outside of the normal legal system - e.g. 'outlaws' - and has them taken off to inhumane internment camps like Guantanamo Bay, where rule of law or the Geneva convention no longer apply. Apparently. One day the US will / should be tried for war crimes, but since they have nukes and veto rights in the UN that's unlikely to happen. They've already indicated they would not hesitate to deploy troops to The Hague to extract any of their (former) leaders if they end up there.