5 ms·

Treason season started early.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
schiffern 2y ago
Under US law, "treason" means either 1) trying to overthrow the government or 2) providing "aid and comfort" to enemies in war. The last time I checked, the US has not declared war with Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...
- dekhn 2y ago
  I think the Logan act is probably more apt? It came up a year ago when this was originally reported https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told-pentagon-staff-he-spoke-to-putin-before-starlink-call https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told...
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    [flagged]
- moosedman 2y ago
  We're well on our way towards war, but also I did add the word early.
- JojoFatsani 2y ago
  War or not, he is aiding and comforting hostile nations.
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    Allegedly. Are you actually unaware he is getting contracts from DOD?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  No one said anything about US law specifically (which wouldn't apply to Musk anyway in this regard), or any kind of law. One can also read it as: "moral treason", betrayal, etc. Not for talking with the guy, per se. But at the moment, if anyone is talking with Putin, it should be for one purpose only: to end the war -- and with that explicit framework in mind. Not business as usual of any kind. And we shouldn't be expected to believe that they talked about “space as well as current and future technologies" in any case.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    On the contrary, in this very comment section posters have already called for Musk to be put on trial and possibly executed for treason. That doesn't sound very metaphorical...
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I see one such comment, but either way: I meant of course "no one" not posting the type of comment you'd be likely to ignore anyway.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Musk is speaking to people who facilitated attacks on U.S. warships. He should not have a security clearance if this is true. If that means him giving up control at SpaceX, so be it.
      - inemesitaffia 2y ago
        [flagged]
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > you're reading this because the contacts were reported No? No evidence that’s the Journal’s source. And we don’t know when what was reported. > article claims it's all good Where?
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Has anyone litigated whether a war needs to be declared to be a war? Not treating war as a technicality is one reason judges exist.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    It’s irrational to demand that. Treason can obviously preclude war. In practice, seditious conspiracy charges are far more common. There was a slave revolt in the 1800s after which charges of treason didn’t stick because resisting slavery is not war against the nation.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Many treason cases do not depend on Congress declaring war: Slave rebellions Puerto-Rican separatists American citizens implicated in terrorism The Congress has never even come close to declaring war in any of these circumstances.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Under US law, "treason" means either 1) trying to overthrow the government or 2) providing "aid and comfort" to enemies in war. The last time I checked, the US has not declared war with Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...

dekhn 2y ago
I think the Logan act is probably more apt? It came up a year ago when this was originally reported https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told-pentagon-staff-he-spoke-to-putin-before-starlink-call https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/musk-told...
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  [flagged]
moosedman 2y ago
We're well on our way towards war, but also I did add the word early.
JojoFatsani 2y ago
War or not, he is aiding and comforting hostile nations.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  Allegedly. Are you actually unaware he is getting contracts from DOD?
aguaviva 2y ago
No one said anything about US law specifically (which wouldn't apply to Musk anyway in this regard), or any kind of law. One can also read it as: "moral treason", betrayal, etc. Not for talking with the guy, per se. But at the moment, if anyone is talking with Putin, it should be for one purpose only: to end the war -- and with that explicit framework in mind. Not business as usual of any kind. And we shouldn't be expected to believe that they talked about “space as well as current and future technologies" in any case.
- schiffern 2y ago
  On the contrary, in this very comment section posters have already called for Musk to be put on trial and possibly executed for treason. That doesn't sound very metaphorical...
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I see one such comment, but either way: I meant of course "no one" not posting the type of comment you'd be likely to ignore anyway.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Musk is speaking to people who facilitated attacks on U.S. warships. He should not have a security clearance if this is true. If that means him giving up control at SpaceX, so be it.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > you're reading this because the contacts were reported No? No evidence that’s the Journal’s source. And we don’t know when what was reported. > article claims it's all good Where?
Zigurd 2y ago
Has anyone litigated whether a war needs to be declared to be a war? Not treating war as a technicality is one reason judges exist.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  It’s irrational to demand that. Treason can obviously preclude war. In practice, seditious conspiracy charges are far more common. There was a slave revolt in the 1800s after which charges of treason didn’t stick because resisting slavery is not war against the nation.
ttyprintk 2y ago
Many treason cases do not depend on Congress declaring war: Slave rebellions Puerto-Rican separatists American citizens implicated in terrorism The Congress has never even come close to declaring war in any of these circumstances.