3 ms·

> You don't do treason just to increase your workplace bottom line, it's absurd. Did you not hear about the Russian tanks that fell apart on their way to Ukrai

by derefr 3y ago

> You don't do treason just to increase your workplace bottom line, it's absurd. Did you not hear about the Russian tanks that fell apart on their way to Ukraine because Russian soldiers had been looting parts of them to sell for vodka? Most treason isn't called out with a big neon sign and a confirm dialog reminding the actor that they're committing treason. From the inside, most treason just feels like workplace fraud/embezzlement, or like laziness, or like "office politicking" where your office happens to be "the state legislature." It's almost always just petty crime, that happens to have big consequences.

dylan604 3y ago
Does this mean because we've become accustomed to ignoring the petty crime treason, when the treason with a giant neon sign and an alert popup that says "THIS IS TREASON" shows up, we're too numb to take action on it?
- lazide 3y ago
  The petty crime isn't treason, generally. The poster is wrong. We're used to ignoring the pop-ups because of the steady escalation and increasing exhaustion. We're being frog boiled.
lazide 3y ago
Treason (in the US) has a specific meaning, which is knowingly aiding a (formal) enemy of the country you are a Citizen of - or explicitly committing acts of war against said country. Those soldiers selling tank parks for vodka weren't committing treason, they were corruptly selling military parts (to presumably NOT the enemy) to get drunk. Which is pretty terrible, and would likely get you shot or imprisoned in most armies. But isn't treason. Aiding a known spy of the enemy? Yes. Sending military supplies to the enemy? Yes. Working on behalf of the enemy (knowingly?) Yes, maybe. Depends on what you do. That might be Espionage, or being an unregistered agent of a foreign power. Both with serious penalties on their own.
- derefr 3y ago
  Knowingly sabotaging your own war-fighting capability when in a state of declared battle readiness, isn't treason? I'm pretty sure intentional friendly fire is treason (or am I wrong?) You're "doing the enemy's job." This is just that, without it happening during a battle, and without there being soldiers in the tank.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Stealing equipment (and selling it) to get drunk is not knowingly sabotaging your countries war effort. It’s theft. In the military. To get drunk. It’s far too short sighted and self serving to intentionally help the enemy, it’s just plain criminality. Not treason. Likely to still get one shot or sent to the Gulag of course. But no one sane is writing ‘treason’ on any of the paperwork. Or is it treason if a woman refuses to have a child because she is ‘sabotaging the future war effort’? Or a car thief who steals a truck, because that truck ‘could be used to transport supplies’? And where did this ‘intentional friendly fire’ come from?
    - derefr 3y ago
      Telling classified secrets to spies for self-serving reasons (e.g. because the spy will sleep with you or give you money) is treason. We can agree on that, right? People have been executed "for treason" for doing that, many many times throughout history. The crime of treason doesn't involve/imply a mens rea of being an insurrectionist / working toward an enemy nation's goals. It instead implies a much more limited mens rea: that you knew that what you're doing would help an enemy nation win a war against your nation, and you did it anyway. > Or is it treason if a woman refuses to have a child because she is ‘sabotaging the future war effort’? Or a car thief who steals a truck, because that truck ‘could be used to transport supplies’? No, because (among other reasons) in both of those cases, those are hypothetical gains lost, rather than concrete losses realized. The military didn't already own the child, or the truck. If you steal a truck that's actually transporting supplies to the front — and thereby also steal the supplies — then yes, that is treason! And, slightly more niche — if this is a monarchy, and the child would become king, and the mother bears the child but then kills it — then yes, that's treason too. At the moment that the child becomes an important state asset, killing them becomes a treasonous act. Though, focusing on the truck, another reason this could be "not treason", is that a civilian stealing a random truck (presumably not a military-painted supply truck) isn't aware that it's a military asset. Likewise, if someone hears a classified secret and repeats it, that's usually not considered treason. In both cases, that's because civilians haven't been told that this truck, or that information, is important to the state. To them, it's just a truck, it's just gossip, etc. So they're just punished for whatever common-law crime they committed, if any. But soldiers are told these things. They know that the truck is carrying supplies; they know that the info is classified. And so when they steal the truck/leak the info anyway, that's considered a betrayal of their country: treason.

by derefr 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

Does this mean because we've become accustomed to ignoring the petty crime treason, when the treason with a giant neon sign and an alert popup that says "THIS IS TREASON" shows up, we're too numb to take action on it?

lazide 3y ago
The petty crime isn't treason, generally. The poster is wrong. We're used to ignoring the pop-ups because of the steady escalation and increasing exhaustion. We're being frog boiled.

lazide 3y ago

Treason (in the US) has a specific meaning, which is knowingly aiding a (formal) enemy of the country you are a Citizen of - or explicitly committing acts of war against said country. Those soldiers selling tank parks for vodka weren't committing treason, they were corruptly selling military parts (to presumably NOT the enemy) to get drunk. Which is pretty terrible, and would likely get you shot or imprisoned in most armies. But isn't treason. Aiding a known spy of the enemy? Yes. Sending military supplies to the enemy? Yes. Working on behalf of the enemy (knowingly?) Yes, maybe. Depends on what you do. That might be Espionage, or being an unregistered agent of a foreign power. Both with serious penalties on their own.

derefr 3y ago
Knowingly sabotaging your own war-fighting capability when in a state of declared battle readiness, isn't treason? I'm pretty sure intentional friendly fire is treason (or am I wrong?) You're "doing the enemy's job." This is just that, without it happening during a battle, and without there being soldiers in the tank.
- lazide 3y ago
  Stealing equipment (and selling it) to get drunk is not knowingly sabotaging your countries war effort. It’s theft. In the military. To get drunk. It’s far too short sighted and self serving to intentionally help the enemy, it’s just plain criminality. Not treason. Likely to still get one shot or sent to the Gulag of course. But no one sane is writing ‘treason’ on any of the paperwork. Or is it treason if a woman refuses to have a child because she is ‘sabotaging the future war effort’? Or a car thief who steals a truck, because that truck ‘could be used to transport supplies’? And where did this ‘intentional friendly fire’ come from?
  - derefr 3y ago
    Telling classified secrets to spies for self-serving reasons (e.g. because the spy will sleep with you or give you money) is treason. We can agree on that, right? People have been executed "for treason" for doing that, many many times throughout history. The crime of treason doesn't involve/imply a mens rea of being an insurrectionist / working toward an enemy nation's goals. It instead implies a much more limited mens rea: that you knew that what you're doing would help an enemy nation win a war against your nation, and you did it anyway. > Or is it treason if a woman refuses to have a child because she is ‘sabotaging the future war effort’? Or a car thief who steals a truck, because that truck ‘could be used to transport supplies’? No, because (among other reasons) in both of those cases, those are hypothetical gains lost, rather than concrete losses realized. The military didn't already own the child, or the truck. If you steal a truck that's actually transporting supplies to the front — and thereby also steal the supplies — then yes, that is treason! And, slightly more niche — if this is a monarchy, and the child would become king, and the mother bears the child but then kills it — then yes, that's treason too. At the moment that the child becomes an important state asset, killing them becomes a treasonous act. Though, focusing on the truck, another reason this could be "not treason", is that a civilian stealing a random truck (presumably not a military-painted supply truck) isn't aware that it's a military asset. Likewise, if someone hears a classified secret and repeats it, that's usually not considered treason. In both cases, that's because civilians haven't been told that this truck, or that information, is important to the state. To them, it's just a truck, it's just gossip, etc. So they're just punished for whatever common-law crime they committed, if any. But soldiers are told these things. They know that the truck is carrying supplies; they know that the info is classified. And so when they steal the truck/leak the info anyway, that's considered a betrayal of their country: treason.