Asymmetrical Information

If the second ammendment got the same respect as does the first, we would all be carrying.

when it turns into a riot, then string em up...

course the brits are falling down in this respect... greenpeace is currently waging war against the uk by blockading its ports, but the brits are being wimps... the only thing the french are good for is dealing with greenpeace, but do they do a good job!

blocking ships in a port and preventing them from departing is a form of blockade, blockade is an act of war and cassus beli, making war against your own country = treason and a long drop on a short rope

but the sun's right, these protests are intended to give aid and comfort to saddam, and are legitimately treasonous... however, prosecutions should be limited to those speakers and protesters obviously threatening the us or endorsing saddam (the ussc doctrine on threats is complete crap, based solely on the unwillingness to prosecute thsoe who were fighting for civil rights by any means necessary, including the threat of death, liberty and freedom depend on it being overturned, so that any threat of violence is subject to extreme sanction)

The editorial was way over the top. Admittedly, I wouldn't have spent much time grieving if a well-placed meteor blew up the stage in DC with the ANSWER thugs and their fellow travellers, but if the First Amendment means anything, it means they have a right to speak their minds. Now, if they start illegally blocking streets and breaking windows. . .well, that's why cops carry handcuffs, nightsticks, and tear gas.

Now, Bonior and McDermott might have made good test cases for a treason prosecution--they stood on Iraqi soil and acted as propaganda conduits for Saddam Hussein. "Aid and Comfort to the enemy", on CNN for the world to see. On the bright side, we now know what the bastard sons of Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose would have looked like.

but the sun's right, these protests are intended to give aid and comfort to saddam, and are legitimately treasonous

"Aid and comfort" means things like "arming them and treating their wounds", not "making them feel loved and appreciated".

A case could be made that the "human shields" are traitors, in that they are deliberately attempting to interfere with United States military operations. But people marching around saying "Saddam rules, Bush sucks" would never have been considered traitors by the authors and signatories of the Bill of Rights.

Solly, Cholly, but aid and comfort means helping them in their attack on the United States and makoing them feel good. It is entirely possible to oppose the war and yet not advocate the case of the enemy. Just as in the Viet Nam war, the "Anti-War" folk were strictly pro enemy and anti U.S. We know that the demonstrations in the street here encouraged the enemy, disheartened our troups and helped kill a lot of those on our side. "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Mien, N L F Is gonna win is definately not neutral.

Even if you were right about what constitues "aid and comfort", Gene -- and IMO you definitely aren't -- Iraq isn't an enemy nation yet. We aren't at war with them, nor have we passed any resolutions officially declaring them an enemy. Therefore giving them aid and comfort cannot be treachery.

If you want to extend the definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy" to cover "saying nice things about anyone the police wish to call 'an enemy'", you eliminate the goal the Founders had in mind when they narrowly tailored the "treason" definition. That's the kind of abuse of state power they were trying to prevent. They were very much tired of people being arrested for "treason" simply for exercising the right of free speech.

FROM SANKO FAMILY

Dear C.e.o

This letter will definitely come to you as a huge surprise, but I implore you to take time and go through it carefully, as the decision you make will go a long way to determine the future and the continued existence of the entire members of my family.

I got information about you from my inquiries and I have the believe that we can build a mutual business relationship.
My name is Dr. Mrs. Laila F. Sankoh, wife to Foday Sankoh, former Sierra Leone Head of State and the leader of the opposition political party in our country, Revolutionary United Front, who is now in prison. In 1998, my husband took over the seat of government of our country, through Coup, from the President Tijan Kabbar. But unfortunately, most of African Head of States didn't welcome my husband's government, and he was asked to vacate the seat of power and return it back to President Kabbar. My husband refused, and this led to the involvement of
the West African Peacekeeping Force, [ECOMOG] which succeeded to removing the unaccepted government of my husband.
My reason of contacting you, is as follows; I and my children has been asked not to leave the country till further notice and our traveling documents were seized. Right from the day, Tijan Kabbar, was re-installed back as President of our country our
family has suffered a lot of humiliation. My husband is now facing charges for treason and war crimes and if found guilty, he shall face a death sentence. Also
all our family assets, properties were confiscated and our bank accounts frooze.
I am having some funds which I need your assistance to safe guard for possible, investment for my family, until we are free to leave the country. This fund in the total sum of USD $ 15.1 Million, which my husband had kept secretly at the heat of the War between his government and the ECOMOG Forces, is all that I and my children hope on to continue in life again. It is only I and my husband that are aware of the existence of this funds and where it is being kept. The authorities are not aware of it, and from the way things are now, I am afraid that if they find out
about the fund, it would be confiscated. In order to avoid such circumstances, and to safe guard this funds, I need a trustworthy TRUSTEE, who shall receive the funds on my behalf overseas for safe keeping. Please, will you become my trustee to
receive and keep this fund in your overseas account, for investment on behalf of my family and get paid for your services? Here in Sierra Leone, Trustee Fees ranges from 10-20%. If you accept to assist me, I want you to state the percentage of the total fund, will pay you as trustee fee. I will be waiting to know your decision soon.
Communicate me only through my above email address,It is safe for me to communicate by email. Please treat this information with utmost confidentiality. Once I receive a positive response from you, I shall send you more details on the arrangement I had made.

Thanks and God bless,for your anticipated
cooperation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mrs. Laila Sankoh

The idea that opposing the war is tantamount to treason is the best example of why so many right wingers are dangerous to democracy and must be checked as much as possible.

Is it only me or is that a 419 spam comment I see above? If you send me the ip address I can track it down. I was going to comment of treason et al but that spam left me depressed.

But we all know that hardly any left-wingers are dangerous to democracy...

Anyway, I'm with Volokh. And Megan. No, sorry, protesting the war isn't treason. Even saying you support Saddam isn't treason.

Giving him direct aid, or sabotaging our efforts--that would be treason. Talking doesn't count as sabotage.

Now, is it unpatriotic? That's a tougher question.

"The idea that opposing the war is tantamount to treason is the best example of why so many right wingers are dangerous to democracy and must be checked as much as possible."

Sure, and left-wingers *never* advocate tossing someone in a jail cell or otherwise destroying their lives for expressing opinions they don't like.

Right.

Peacefully demonstrating is not treason--even breaking windows and otherwise being hooligans in the course of a demonstration isn't treason--though it is grounds for the introduction of tear gas, nightsticks, handcuffs, and paddy wagons into the situation. Two sitting congressmen going to the capital of a hostile power (Iraq's been shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones--ignoring everything else, that's hostile enough for me) and acting as propaganda conduits for that power in the fine tradition established by Lord Haw Haw. . .well, I wouldn't mind testing the proposition as to whether the little bastards shouldn't be rotting in cells for a few years. Sadly, I don't see it happening.

Protesting a war is not treason. Advancing the cause of a country that we are currently at war with, especially giving credance to the arguments of the enemy are a whole nother thing. We know that Sadam likely watches every anti-war demonstration on TV and probably bankrolls some of them. We also know from the writings of the Viet Cong that they knew they could wait the US out. They didn't have to win in the field, the democrats and draft evadors did it for them.

Advancing the cause of a country that we are currently at war with

We are not currently at war with any countries.

They have the right to speech and to peaceably assemble to protest the war.

But I for one do not believe that blocking streets and breaking windows constitutes "peaceable". And once we are at war, breaking windows (or anything else that actively impedes the war effort) may well be considered treasonous.

Funny, I agree with Dan in thinking that, in line with the founders' intent, "giving aid and comfort" generally meant supplying the enemy with information or supplies, or providing them with shelter. I guess the folks at the Sun have a more liberal interpretation of constitution than we do.

"Funny, I agree with Dan in thinking that, in line with the founders' intent, "giving aid and comfort" generally meant supplying the enemy with information or supplies, or providing them with shelter. I guess the folks at the Sun have a more liberal interpretation of constitution than we do."

So, do you believe that freedom of speech and the press shouldn't apply to telecommunications, since they didn't exist in any form at the time the Constitution was written? Putting forth propaganda helps the enemy. Lord Haw Haw wasn't strung up by the British after the war because they didn't like the way he looked in jackboots--they did it because he was a traitor, and was convicted as such. The Sun went too far, but to say that nothing verbal could be construed as treasonous is just as foolish, IMO.

" 'Advancing the cause of a country that we are currently at war with'

We are not currently at war with any countries."

Saddam is in violation of a cease fire that he signed to save his sorry ass. He's been shooting at U.S. planes for years now. If it's not war, he's certainly our enemy nonetheless. Being cute about terminology doesn't change that.

And regarding Dan's and Scott's comments, Eugene Volokh has also written that "war" does not require a declaration of "war" in so many words, indeed, the Congressional resolution already passed is sufficient. This means that we have a declared enemy and therefore certain acts may be considered treasonous.

Hey guys,

I have written my representatives to tell them I disagree with US policy. I also voted against George Bush. Does this mean I should be hung up for treason? If I were to be seen at a protest can I expect that you will bring your family and a picnic when I get strung up?

Dan ---

Compare the definition of treason in Article III with the statute 25 Edw. III c. 2. What the Framers had in mind is not quite what you think.

Hey, how about that? Someone finally put Blackstone on the Web. They did a crappy job of it, though: They just shoved the First Edition through a halfway-intelligent OCR program, and the half that was intelligent wasn't the half responsible for telling the difference between "s" and "f" in old bookf, fo it might take fome getting ufed to:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch6.htm

We are currently legally at war with Iraq and with North Korea. Before any more people suggest that I am just a right wing nut, I suggest they check their dictionary for the definition of "Truce."

"Sure, and left-wingers *never* advocate tossing someone in a jail cell or otherwise destroying their lives for expressing opinions they don't like."

sequitur-wise, that was non.

but, sure, I'll take the bait. Please to provide a citation for a left-wing American advocating jail time for someone for expressing an unpopular opinion.

thanks you.

Lord Haw Haw. Tokyo Rose. Axis Sal. Ezra Pound.

Running your mouth for the enemy is treason.

It is not protected by the First Amendment.

First Amendment absolutism is false as a theory of the Constitution, and suicidal as a political aim.

Did someone nearby say "the Constitution is not a suicide pact"?

But the Left has everybody either brainwashed or intimidated.

Regards.

""Sure, and left-wingers *never* advocate tossing someone in a jail cell or otherwise destroying their lives for expressing opinions they don't like."

sequitur-wise, that was non."

Not really--the poster was suggesting that wanting to toss antiwar protestors in the clink was the "best example" of why so many right-wingers are dangerous to democracy. I was pointing out that wanting to silence opponents by force of law isn't a monopoly of right wingers.

Thanks for playing, though.

"but, sure, I'll take the bait. Please to provide a citation for a left-wing American advocating jail time for someone for expressing an unpopular opinion."

My comment wasn't confined to Americans (for that matter, neither was the comment I was responding to), and I suspect you know that too (since finding quotes from non-American leftists who want to--and do--throw their opponents in jail is a rather trivial exercise). I also notice you confined your request to actual advocacy of jail time, which allows you to ignore the destruction of careers and lives that have resulted from the PC phenomenon on university campuses and elsewhere in academia, and which is almost exclusively driven by leftists and those too cowardly to oppose them.

Nice try, kid.

What do you call hate crimes legislation, other than "tossing someone in jail for holding an unpopular opinion?" Or RICO prosecutions aimed at otherwise lawful anti-abortion protesters? To name just two off the top of my head.

But let's look again here -- loathesome as the editorial was, denying someone a police permit for a parade is not quite the same as tossing them in jail. And you don't really want to try to claim that the left has not frequently advocated denying people access to various public places based on their loathesome opinions, do you?

What is that great silence I see?
Cat got your keyboards?

I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation but isn't hate crimes supposed to be applied to existing crimes. In other words if you murder someone that is murder. If you murder someone because they are a jew that is murder which has the possibility of being prosecuted with more force (read longer sentencing etc) because it is a hate crime.

I have never heard of someone being jailed for "holding an unpopular opinion" and it being called a hate crime.

I have heard of many people being jailed in other countries for "holding an unpopular opinion" but that's not what we are discussing is it?

It is my understanding that RICO prosecutions have been used against many otherwise lawful activities as a grand catch all for difficult times. This strikes me as an inherent problem with RICO and says nothing about either right or left. It is certainly true that prosecutors of both stripes have used said laws. It doesn't actually belong only to left wingers per se. This seems a bit dishonest to make such a correlation.

RICO is likely unconstitutional.
It has been used to promote a misdemeanor to a felony. It is not used where it was supposed to be used. L.A. has a gang problem. With RICO they could arrest anyone belonging to a gang where anyone in the gang coommits a crime. They don't likely because the folks they arrest are the same ones who stuff the ballot box for them. See Jones' temple.

I agree with the Sun's definition of treason. And that's exactly why we need to prosecute Bush I and Dick Cheney and the GOP establishment for giving "aid and comfort" to Saddam Hussein when he was gassing his own people or attacking Iran back in the '80s.

STRING THEM UP!!!

I'm agreeing with you here Gene. Hence my point. But noone seems to be addressing what this has to do with left or right.

And what the hell are you talking about stuffing the ballow box? Are you saying that gang bangers in Los Angeles are going around stuffing ballot boxes in elections? Are you on crack? Need to sit down for a minute to catch your breath?

The reverend Jones of Jonestown fame was. while he was in Frisco and up to the time he drank coolade he Was actively working for the democrats. Among other things he would supply troops for any left wing demonstration, get out the vote for democrats and very likely helped stuff ballot boxes. He was rewarded by having childr given to him so that he could collect their welfare checks, a practice he continued after moving to Jonestown.
No crack, no out of breath, simply a lot more aware than you seem to be.
Gangs don't stuff ballot boxes? Get real.

Thumper: I have a low opinion of the US support for Saddam under both Twin Pillars and the Iran-Iraq War, but your comment is nonetheless bogus. Saddam, at that time, was not recognized as an enemy -- or if he was, please show me the reference.

Oh, goody -- can we get FDR & co too, for cavorting with Stalin?

When you add a punishment for an existing crime based on the hateful thoughts of the person committing it, I find it hard to see how that is not "throwing someone in jail for holding an unpopular opinion". Other aggravating circumstances are focused on things that are, in themselves crimes: assaulting a police officer in commision of his duty, committing another felony, multiple homicide. This is adding an aggravating penalty because you're a racist. Doesn't seem much different to me from adding an aggravating penalty for being anti-war -- would that be ok?

Jane - there is a chance for you yet. You are 100% on "Hate" crimes.

Anony-Mouse:

You can't possibly believe that a few marchers exercising their 1st Amendment rights are more responsible for the mess in Iraq than Reagan, Bush, Cheney, et al.

See http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm

Treason.

Funny that Thumper could not remember the names of any democrats. But wait Democrats have been out of power for half a century so never mind.

Obviously, protesting war isn't treason. Nor is visiting the home of a potential enemey and saying US policy is bad, a'la Bonior and company. Even Jane Fonda's despicable exploits in Vietnam don't qualify.

The Constitution sets an almost impossibly high bar on purpose. Fewer than 40 treason prosecutions have happened in US history, and even fewer convictions. "Aid and comfort" essentially requires working on direct behalf of the enemy in furtherance of his activities. Simply expressing belief that those activities are really neat isn't "aid and confort."

See, for example, this discussion: http://www.henrymarkholzer.com/talibanjohn.info/essential_elements.htm

Comments are Closed.