Chicks-n-Scratching

Okay. Granted, I’m probably one of maybe a few thousand people who care, but this is something that drives me crazy. I’m a political scientist by training and bent, and there are some terms that just really chap my hide. Why? Because these are terms with very specific meanings and applications, and they are being bandied about willy-nilly by people who clearly know neither the appropriate use of the term or the requirements for same.

Am I going to be able to educate them all? No. They will continue to annoy me with their ignorance. But… maybe I’ll catch a few of you. Maybe. Then again, if you are reading this blog, you’re probably more willing than most to learn the real use of these terms.

So…. what are the terms getting my goat today? Well, today, I’ll stick to one: treason.

This is a politically loaded terms which I hear used in all kinds of inappropriate and incorrect ways. It makes me want to club people with a clue stick. It’s actually much more narrowly defined than the usage in common parlance.

Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution.  Article III Section 3 states:

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.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What does this mean? Well, the first part is actually a pretty narrow definition: A citizen must engage in war against the United States (i.e., in a time of actual WAR be on the side of the enemy – and, by the way, we are not actually at war. No declaration of War has been passed by Congress. And yes, Congress declares war, not the President – but that’s a whole other WTF lesson), or must give tangible aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. This last bit is a bit more vague, though it has traditionally been interpreted to mean in times of war. Which, as previously mentioned, we aren’t. However, that isn’t really clear, so it is possible to have treason in a state of not-quite-war, which would be applicable today. The second bit – 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. Well, that means a conviction of treason can only happen in one of two ways, and those are spelled out for you. It means that TWO witnesses must have actually SEEN the overtly treasonous act, and they must testify in court to same; or the person must confess IN COURT.

Now, can you see what I mean about this term being used really loosely? It isn’t treason to SAY anything. There is no such thing as treasonous speech in the US. PERIOD. There is no such thing as treasonous WRITING. Treason is a very, very specific ACTION. And a person can’t engage in treason by themselves. They must join some “enemy” of the US for it to be treason. So, under the most liberal interpretation, it might be considered treason if Bob (for the sake of ease, I’m giving our hypothetical traitor a name) was recruited by an enemy of the US and engaged in combat actions against US troops. [Not against Australian or British or French troops - that's not covered under the narrow definition of treason. I mean, that would make Bob any number of nasty things, but traitor isn't one of them.].

Similarly, if Bob decided to go hang out with the enemy and, say, provide medical or financial care, in operations AGAINST THE US, that could be considered treason (again, traditionally, it has been used only in times of actual war, but that isn’t strictly spelled out). This is where most accusations of treason fall.

Consider the case of Jane Fonda. She was strongly opposed to US involvement in Vietnam (again, no formal declaration of war was ever made, so not technically a war). She went over to Vietnam and was photographed sitting on anti-aircraft guns used to shoot down US aircraft (but she did no shooting, so so far no actual treason). She spoke with POWs and North Vietnamese troops, but there is no evidence she provided financial or other aid to them. Hence, no treason. Do I think what she did was right? No. My opinion of her is…well, we won’t go into that here. Suffice to say I don’t like her.

But it illustrates the point I’m trying to make. No matter how much I dislike her and her actions, no matter how damaging I think she was to the US efforts in Vietnam, what she did was not, in the Constitutionally defined term, treason. And that’s the point I think is hard for people to get.

Treason is not anything that harms or damages the US or its interests. Treason is not doing something that is clearly non-supportive of the US or its goals or allies.

Oh – and that second paragraph? That’s basically limiting what Congress can do to a convicted traitor. Yes, they can punish him. What they can’t do is make it apply to anyone but the traitor (that’s the corruption of blood bit – you can’t punish a traitor’s family for the traitor’s actions), and you can’t take stuff from his/her estate after they are dead. If you are going to take stuff from the traitor, it has to be while he/she is alive. This was a specific response to how treason was punished in Europe.

The founding fathers put this single crime in the Constitution because the accusation of treason had been used as a bludgeon for centuries to hammer political enemies, and the founding fathers absolutely didn’t want that happening in the new Republic. Their solution was to craft a very specific, very narrow definition of the word traitor. The founding fathers wanted it clear that dissent, even to the point of limited action, was not treason. We might do well to remember that – even if we don’t like it one bit.

2 Responses to “WTF – Clarification of a term”