3 ms·

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

by wbl 3y ago

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...

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

by wbl 3y ago

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

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...