Misprision of Treason: A lot Republicans will be learning 18 U.S. Code 2382

[Julian Englis]

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2018, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

This section of United Stated Code ought to be on the minds of Pence, Manafort, Individual 1, Jr., Priebus, and other Republicans.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

[marylandblue]

1. We just had another thread on why it's not treason

Basically, treason can only occur during actual physical shooting wars and not in any other circumstance. If we are going to be a nation of laws, lets get the law right.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States is the crime, and sounds fairly treasonous anyway.

[Baltimike]

2. Cyber war is an act of war, according to the Pentagon, since 2012. nt

[marylandblue]

4. It's not a war according to the Constitution, Congress, and the courts

This is by deliberate design because treason laws were used for all all kinds of stupid things in England and the framers didn't want that. And you should be glad, because if cyberwar were a legal war, Hillary Clinton would have been accused of it already.

[pnwmom]

5. It wasn't deliberately left out. it didn't exist when the Constitution was written.

And cyberwarfare could wreak a huge amount of havoc, and even cause loss of life. If they attacked our hospitals or critical parts of our infrastructure, would you still say it wasn't an act of war?

[onenote]

6. Countries that are at war don't maintain diplomatic relations or allow trade and travel.

We're not in a state of war with Russia and no amount of pretending otherwise changes that fact.

[pnwmom]

8. We weren't at at with Japan till they attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

If we suffered a cyberwarfare event that result in a major loss of life, we should cut off diplomatic relations, bar the from coming here, and strongly consider declaring a state of war.

[onenote]

11. "If" hasn't happened. So I guess you're agreeing with me that we're not presently at war with Russia

[pnwmom]

12. I never said we were. But I don't think we should be deciding in advance

that a cyberwarfare attack couldn't be an act of war because the Founders didn't include it in the Constitution.

[meow2u3]

19. It doesn't require a state of war for treason

It requires an act of war. Russia committed an act of war against us by their cyberattacks on us.

[triron]

7. I agree. We live in a much different world than that when the treason statute was created.

Perhaps we are just mincing words.

[marylandblue]

9. An "act of war" and a war are two different things

And it's not that they deliberately left out things that didn't exist. It's that they narrowed the scope to declared wars that are clearly recognized as wars by both sides and every person in both countries. If there had been an actual declared war that included recognized hostilities, and also included cyberwarfare, then and only then would assisting cyberwarfare be an act of treason. This is what the case law points to.

Perhaps more importantly, why would Mueller even go down this untested path? He has bribery, campaign finance, tax evasion, bank fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, perjury and conspiracy to defraud the United States. All crimes that are clearly defined, impeachable, and have been successfully prosecuted many times. But for some reason, that's not bad enough, it has to be treason too.

[pnwmom]

10. It has to start somewhere. When Japan struck us at Pearl Harbor,

that was the start of a state of war between us.

I'm not saying that Mueller needs to go down this path. But cyberwarfare will probably be in our future at some point. We should be prepared.

[marylandblue]

15. In terms of law, aiding a cyberwar still could be considered espionage, theft or other crimes

In terms of warfare, the military does have cyberwar capabilities, but it seems like the Russians are ahead of us, or at least more willing to use it than we are.

[pnwmom]

13. If Americans had assisted in the attack at Pearl Harbor, before a state of war

officially existed between our countries, wouldn't that still have been an act of treason?

[marylandblue]

14. Possibly, but only because it started the war or led directly to it

Russia's cyberwar did not lead to hostilities.

[pnwmom]

17. I am not saying the recent Russian cyber attacks amounted to war.

I AM saying that the fact that the Constitution doesn't address cyberwarfare doesn't mean that a cyberwar attack couldn't start a war, especially if it caused a significant loss of life. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that responds to changing times. It isn't set in stone, despite what some Rethug "originalists" believe.

[marylandblue]

20. I can agree with that.

[treestar]

21. "not bad enough"

Exactly. Our culture these days seems to require the worst possible label or it's nothing.

[marylandblue]

22. This is not about culture today, it's about a legal bright line in the Constitution

To prevent political prosecutions for treason. And why do we need to make this legal treason when there are so many other crimes? I just dont see Mueller or any court going there.

If you want to call it treason colloquially, that's fine, but it doesn't change the law. Colloquial treason is no more a crime than collusion is. But they both cover a lot of real legal crimes that are more than bad enough.

[brush]

16. Sedition comes closer to what the trumpers have done but it still...

doesn't quite get there.

They've created a way to undermine your own country right before out eyes.

[TomSlick]

3. There's an easier answer.

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

As a practical matter, no one will be charged unless there is a special duty to report or active concealment of the crime. Mere failure to report would not be charged. I suggest that if you are - say the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee - and go to pains to assist in the cover-up, you make out the offense.

[lostnfound]

18. That seems like good reasoning. Nt