4 ms·

No, it's cogent to the argument. Undermining US economic and industrial capacity could be argued treasonous.

by engineer_22 3y ago

wbl 3y ago
We literally have a clause in the Constitution defining what treason is, and that's not it.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  Aid and comfort to the enemy, or making war against the US government. I'd say the terms under which many investments in PRC were made fall under the first standard.
  - lettergram 3y ago
    Companies in china are not defined as an enemy. I say this agreeing that these investors really hallowed out America. My father was in one of those factories and I remember him specifically training his Chinese replacement (who they flew over for 6 months). It devastated my family. That said, I don’t think treason is the correct term.
    - marnett 3y ago
      What if the company is nationalized?
    - lenerdenator 3y ago
      There is no such thing as a "company" in China as we understand it in the United States. There are CCP-controlled/tolerated commercial ventures that participate in the market economy. If you're investing in China, you can be sure there's a Party boss who's getting to wet his beak and dictate terms on which the deal will be accepted. Investments in China are not handled for the benefit of private interests; they are handled for the benefit of a strategic goal of the state.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    That's not what the Constitution says, it says treason is "adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort." So there are actually two separate conditions that both need to be satisfied, aiding the enemies of the United States and adhering to them. By saying you think aiding the enemies of the United States alone is sufficient you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court. If simply aiding the enemies of the United States is sufficient for a treason conviction then would everyone who goes on strike at a factory that makes something important to the US military (steel lets say) be committing treason? The Supreme Court and myself say its only treason if the strike was done out of adherence to a foreign power and not if done for other reasons (like better working conditions). I think the Supreme Court's interpretation is much more practical and less prone to abuse then yours. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
bilbo0s 3y ago
Treason is a Constitutional thing.
voxic11 3y ago
Its only treason if you undermine the US economic and industrial capacity with the intent of betraying the United States for the enemy. If you do it for other reasons such as profit then there is no treason. For example there are teachers striking in my town right now, they may be undermining a essential US government function and you could argue that this aids our enemies but because that isn't their intent it is not treason. > "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." > the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...
- engineer_22 3y ago
  Well here we are... Arguing. Ergo it's arguable.

No, it's cogent to the argument. Undermining US economic and industrial capacity could be argued treasonous.

wbl 3y ago

We literally have a clause in the Constitution defining what treason is, and that's not it.

lenerdenator 3y ago
Aid and comfort to the enemy, or making war against the US government. I'd say the terms under which many investments in PRC were made fall under the first standard.
- lettergram 3y ago
  Companies in china are not defined as an enemy. I say this agreeing that these investors really hallowed out America. My father was in one of those factories and I remember him specifically training his Chinese replacement (who they flew over for 6 months). It devastated my family. That said, I don’t think treason is the correct term.
  - marnett 3y ago
    What if the company is nationalized?
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    There is no such thing as a "company" in China as we understand it in the United States. There are CCP-controlled/tolerated commercial ventures that participate in the market economy. If you're investing in China, you can be sure there's a Party boss who's getting to wet his beak and dictate terms on which the deal will be accepted. Investments in China are not handled for the benefit of private interests; they are handled for the benefit of a strategic goal of the state.
- voxic11 3y ago
  That's not what the Constitution says, it says treason is "adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort." So there are actually two separate conditions that both need to be satisfied, aiding the enemies of the United States and adhering to them. By saying you think aiding the enemies of the United States alone is sufficient you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court. If simply aiding the enemies of the United States is sufficient for a treason conviction then would everyone who goes on strike at a factory that makes something important to the US military (steel lets say) be committing treason? The Supreme Court and myself say its only treason if the strike was done out of adherence to a foreign power and not if done for other reasons (like better working conditions). I think the Supreme Court's interpretation is much more practical and less prone to abuse then yours. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...

bilbo0s 3y ago

Treason is a Constitutional thing.

voxic11 3y ago

Its only treason if you undermine the US economic and industrial capacity with the intent of betraying the United States for the enemy. If you do it for other reasons such as profit then there is no treason. For example there are teachers striking in my town right now, they may be undermining a essential US government function and you could argue that this aids our enemies but because that isn't their intent it is not treason. > "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." > the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy—making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/art...

engineer_22 3y ago
Well here we are... Arguing. Ergo it's arguable.