The overuse of the word treason

[cali]

on DU, has reached an absurd level.

It's become a mirror image of wingnut accusations targeting dems.

Simply because some action is deplorable, doesn't necessarily make it treasonous. Treason is easily defined. It has a specific meaning.

Tossing the word treason around like confetti, renders the term meaningless.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Add it the list of words on DU that are now meaningless.

[hootinholler]

96. Ok MeaninglessBastard will do!

[still_one]

2. It is more than just an emotional response to the frustrations of the republicans obstructing

everything from this President.

If you recall during the bush reign, anyone who opposed that administration was viewed as "anti-American". President Obama has been treated with so much disrespect, not only from this Congress, but also propagated through the media.

When a Georgia teacher tells students their parents aren’t Christians if they voted for Obama:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/georgia-teacher-tells-students-their-parents-arent-christians-if-they-voted-for-obama/

or call the President every name in the book, is that the American way?

When you have republicans in Congress trying to sabotage negotiations that the elected administration is involved with, and aligning itself with a foreign power to undercut the President, in all fairness, it comes pretty close to crossing that line.

[cali]

3. it's still not treason

and that the republicans were even worse when it came to tossing that charge when Bush was president, is a lousy argument.

[still_one]

7. You are correct, conspiring with a foreign power to subvert an agreement from our government is not

treason, unless a call by those parties is made to overthrow the government

[cali]

15. nope. sorry. not a conspiracy

[still_one]

20. Trying to undermine this administrations foreign policy is a conspiracy by republicans in the house.

John Boehner admitted as much:

WASHINGTON — Speaker of the House John Boehner admitted he purposely kept President Obama in the dark about inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress.
“I frankly didn’t want them getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/15/boehner-admits-keeping-obama-in-dark-about-netanyahu/

[leveymg]

45. Subversion by an officer of a coequal branch isn't legally Treason - a very limited meaning:

Boehner's subversion wouldn't be treason unless we were technically at war with Israel.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes

prev | next
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

[jwirr]

83. Okay - I want to know what you call what the Rs are doing. Or is it all perfectly legal?

[cali]

84. despicable is what i call it

And legal

[jwirr]

94. Unfortunately.

[heaven05]

38. no it isn't

it is quite appropriate. Right after 9/11 everyone was committing treason that spoke out against the shrub and the policies(Iraq) of his administration. And if anyone had sent letters to foreign countries during the agitation for war that bush pushed, they would be in GITMO now and the whole family investigated.

[samsingh]

69. in your opinion

[cali]

78. no. it's fact, as outlined under the Constitution

not opinion.

[yeoman6987]

6. True but I think patriotic was used too much

During Bish years. Helped tie a shoe patriotic. Signed up to join the military patriotic. Just about anything you did that the Bush team recognized was patriotic. If you disagreed with Bush team you were unpatriotic.

[still_one]

14. actually it was stronger than that in my view, they viewed it as anti-American, which I think has a

stronger connotation than unpatriotic

[el_bryanto]

4. Thank you for posting this

I came to DU after participating on a Conservatoid board where the word was thrown around constantly, and i find it's use very frustrating. This was during the Bush Presidency, at a time when Ann Coulter was suggesting that the United States needed to execute a few Democrats to keep the rest of us from turning traitor. Most people on that board agreed with her assessment (which is why I eventually quit that board (that and being called a bed-wetter)).

I know that most people on this Board don't want to see their political enemies executed; I doubt most of them even want to see them locked up. I know that for most it's just an expression of frustration at how things are going, so I don't comment on it, but I am very uncomfortable when I see it.

Bryant

[still_one]

11. Actually, if an attempt to do what Ann Coulter suggested was done, that could be construed as

treason, because it is coming pretty close to advocating a violent over throw of a political party

[dumbcat]

22. Where is advocating the violent overthrow of a political party

defined as treason?

"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."

[still_one]

27. Are political parties considered part of our system of government?

Then again, if a political party advocates the overthrowing of our government that would probably be interpreted as treasonous

So, it looks like you are correct

[dumbcat]

30. They are not "States"

in any case.

[still_one]

32. You are right. I don't think political parties are even mentioned in the

Constitution

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. "... violent overthrow of a political party."

[MineralMan]

5. Sadly, I doubt that your plea will

result in less use of the word. As long as I've been involved in discussing politics, that word has been used indiscriminately by people to accuse those with whom they disagree.

It's too bad. Really.

[cali]

8. no doubt you are correct

But I still think it's worth saying

[MineralMan]

12. I agree. It's always worth saying.

I've posted the part of the Constitution that defines treason many times, for all the good it does. I have it in a notepad file, along with a bunch of other frequent cut and paste items.

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.

[NuclearDem]

9. Poster below me is guilty of treason.

[Orrex]

10. You're only saying that because I sold secrets to the Prussians.

[still_one]

13. As far as I am aware that wouldn't be viewed as treason. However, perhaps spying would come into

play

[Orrex]

19. GOD DAMN IT!

I can't even commit treason right.

[NuclearDem]

16. Austria-Hungary forever!

[tammywammy]

17. Frankly, when I read a rant on here where the entire basis is "treason"

I conclude the author is uneducated and roll my eyes.

I doubt this OP will lessen the frequency of the "treason" outrage on DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. It's a cousin to Godwin's Law./NT

[still_one]

23. That is true, and free speech, even if an exaggeration

[still_one]

21. So during the Viet Nam war when Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam and made a propaganda film with an

enemy we were fighting, was that treason?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Technically no because there was no declaration of law.

And I suspect a Constitutional lawyer would argue that mere words of support or empathy with an enemy of the U S doesn't rise to treason; the support must be material.


But to throw the word around willy nilly is embarrassing.

[still_one]

26. John Walker Lindh was tried for the following charges

Conspiracy to murder US citizens or US nationals
Two counts of providing material support and resources to terrorist organizations
One count of supplying services to the Taliban
Conspiracy to contribute services to Al Qaeda
Contributing services to Al Qaeda
Conspiracy to supply services to the Taliban
Using and carrying firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence

Treason wasn't included in those charges, which supports your point

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I was looking at case law and there isn't much...

Here's the exact language:

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.

I don't see any Aid, i.e. material support on the part of Ms. Fonda.

[still_one]

31. Well she wasn't charged with anything, though those fighting in that war they viewed her actions

as giving Aid and Comfort to the enemy, and regarded her actions as treasonous, but technically it wasn't

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I can kind of see how they would be upset but it wasn't treasonous...

And Ms. Fonda would have been the first to say her opposition was not to those serving but to those who sent them there.


It was a looooong time ago...

[still_one]

37. Actually Jane Fonda later expressed regret for what she did at that time. I just brought it up

the OP is discussing what constitutes treason

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I know...I am reluctant to call anybody a traitor and when I do it's more out of anger...

I know...I am reluctant to call anybody a traitor and when I do it's more out of anger than out of conviction or a well thought out argument.

[still_one]

42. As I said, even John Walker Lindh who fought with the Taliban was charged with Treason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

[dumbcat]

47. Aid and comfort

I don't see any Aid, i.e. material support on the part of Ms. Fonda.

If she was not paid for her participation in the propaganda films, one could make the case that she provided her participation gratis in lieu of payment and thus provided material support. Also if any part of her trip was paid for by the NVA/VC. It was certainly comfort.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Then why wasn't she prosecuted?/NT

[dumbcat]

75. Don't ask me

Maybe she had connections? Why weren't the banksters prosecuted?

[treestar]

58. where to draw the line though

we don't want to discourage all communication, as it could lead to the end of the war. Going into peace talks in Paris as they did would be viewed as aid and comfort by the most extreme.

She did not help them militarily to gain any win or battle.

[still_one]

68. I don't think the peace talks in Paris could be interpreted that way because it was through

government channels, not an individual or group taking the place of the government

[treestar]

72. OK.

But then what is aid and comfort? Did they mean it had to be intended to lead to military gain of some type?

And I doubt Jane Fonda was after that. What about individuals talking to other individuals of the enemy? That could be a good thing, but better if it were just Vietnamese citizens. In today's world, it would be easy to have it happen, too. Say we could get on the internet and talk to Iranians. This could be a very good thing and lead to much less will to war.

[H2O Man]

25. It is said that

when the ancient philosopher Confucius was asked what he would do, if he had unlimited power, he responded, "Request that people use words properly."

"Treason" is a wonderful example of a word currently mis-used. First, there is the very limited legal definition, found in the Constitution of the United States. Since relatively few people have read this document, or are otherwise familiar with it, most calls for people to be charged with treason are downright silly.

There is, of course, a more expansive meaning to the word. It, too, has been diluted of meaning by the uninformed and misinformed masses.

[brush]

29. I agree the word "treason" is over used and many confuse it with "sedition" . . .

and in the most recent uproar over the Cotton letter, a violation of the Logan Act.

[still_one]

33. The question is, did the letter of the 47 loonies to Iran constitute negotiating with a foreign

government we are having a dispute with?

[cali]

40. not even close

[Nye Bevan]

56. Writing what amounts to an op-ed that describes how they interpret the Constitution?

I'll go out on a limb and say "not treason".

[still_one]

64. I wasn't referring to treason, but a violation of the Logan Act

[Surya Gayatri]

34. '...mirror image of wingnut accusations targeting dems.'

[Kingofalldems]

35. Good try.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. You dare question their zeal? THAT'S TREASON! nt

[malthaussen]

43. Have you read some good histories of the Civil War?

Around Washington in 1861-62, "treason" was coming out of everybody's mouth -- in reference not to the CSA, but US politicians and generals who, for whatever reason, were on the shit list of the speaker. They used it pretty freely on the other side of the Potomac, too, and again about their own people.

I agree it's overused, but we overuse so many words these days that I hardly can single out treason as exceptional.

-- Mal

[stone space]

44. The word is overused because people like the attached penaty.

That's really all that it comes down to.

It raises the specter of state sponsored murder, and does so without having to spell it out explicitly.

[world wide wally]

46. What word would be more appropriate then for what Republicans do to

undermine this President?

[Nye Bevan]

54. "Political opposition" (nt)

[treestar]

60. OK

but extreme all out of proportion political opposition due to hysteria at black man being elected. Stuff they didn't do before which was protocol.

[Nye Bevan]

63. I think those who expect bipartisan sweetness and light if a white Dem wins in 2016

might end up just a little bit disappointed.

[treestar]

65. Perhaps.

Now that the right has lowered the bar and gone as far as they can, they might be used to it and keep doing it.

[world wide wally]

71. There has always been "political opposition" in this country, but can you specify

another instance of consorting with a foreign power to undermine a freely elected President, and then sending a communication to another foreign country to undermine his efforts yet again to tell them that this president has no authorization to negotiate on their behalf?

I'm just looking for the appropriate word and it is far beyond "political opposition". I would imagine political opposition to appear more like what goes in in British Parliament when they argue passionately.

[Martin Eden]

101. Reprehensible, Irresponsible, Reckless

Their aim is to damage this president, regardless of consequences to the country.

[samsingh]

49. repugs are treasonous. we're just stating the facts

and btw - rove and cheney have thrown the word around when referring to Democrats.

[cali]

51. yes, assholes throw the charge around. that doesn't

make it anymore accurate. And what you expressed is opinion,NOT fact.

[samsingh]

55. actually, many people let liberals like the dixie chicks get called out for treason

for free speech and don't seem to get worked up about it when us senators write a letter to a foreign government. on many scale of facts i think the second is far more treasonous than the former.

and the bush lord did not stop the charges against the chicks when he was asked.

[cali]

73. actually, there was enormous pushback

But you seem to think because chieftains do it, that makes it fine. Not to mention that there were certainly no charges of treason filed. Only a complete ashore would seriously suggest there should have been.

[samsingh]

87. i don't care if its fine. i'm tired of the left being muzzled by the right and by

members of the left who should try schooling those spewing vitriole on the right. Try asking free republic to tone down their garbage.

the right flourishes when we 'take the high road', 'fight fair'. they fing stole an election where Gore had won the most votes and their supreme court cronies stopped the counting 'because having Gore win more votes in Florida would have turned the public against bush's presidency'. And i believe the shifty 5 went on to say something like 'this is a one time decision and should not be used to set precident'. We didn't fight back. i remember people on the right saying 'we stole the election fair and square'.


so i don't appreciate the high ground or the specific terminology that is completely disregarded by the right whereever and whenever they want. and their ongoing filthy lies.

[cali]

95. whatthefuckever

Spew your own vitriol to your heart's content.

[samsingh]

61. yes calling us assholes on a liberal site is very factual and not opinion

i'm being sarcastic just so you understand.

btw - i'm not reporting you for using an offensive term you called a liberal just for standing up for our President.

[cali]

79. l was referring to rove etc

[samsingh]

86. ok

[treestar]

66. True. While none of it is treason, the Rs certainly

deserve to have the word thrown at them. They used it in lesser circumstances.

[Agnosticsherbet]

50. Treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution. But good luck trying

to end its blatant misuse.

I've brought this up several times. No one listens.

[samsingh]

70. so are high crimes and misdemeaners

remind me why President Clinton was impeached by the house?

[cali]

76. wtf? completely wrong

High crimes and misdemeanors is famously vague. Treason is highly specific.

[samsingh]

85. famously vague? how does a blow job ever rise to whatever ridiculous interpretation of a High crime?

[cali]

88. yes, famously vague

As in not defined in the Constitution- unlike treason which is defined with great specificity.

[samsingh]

90. you didn't address any of my points at all.

good bye,
no point in propagating your useless thread.

[cali]

93. you really are remarkably uninformed

I certainly did address your point. Let me put this very simply so that you can understand: High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever congress claims they are. There is no constitutional bar.

[jobycom]

104. It's not vague in the Constitution. It's only vague now because people want it to be.

The phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a very specific meaning of "distinctly political crimes against the state." There was nothing vague when it was used in the Constitution. It meant an action that was specifically meant to harm the state or the state's authority. Mutiny on a government or military vessel would be an example of a high crime. Mutiny on a fishing vessel wouldn't be.

During the impeachment of Clinton, the Republicans pretended the meaning was vague so they could impeach Clinton, and the media, as always, just went along with them.

[cali]

105. sorry, legal experts do not agree

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. Please define high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no definition in the constitution.

Did it mean getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky, a consenting adult?
Was it sexual harassment? Did it mean any one of the things they investigated Clinton for from getting a hair cut on the ramp of LAX to using the IRS to attack political enemies that were not on the indictment?
Was it saying, "I did not have sex with that woman..."
Was it testifying, "That depends on what the meaning of "Is" is." That is a question of great interest to lawyers, apparently.

From the Constitution:

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.

Writing a letter to a foreign government and telling them to ignore the President is not treason by the definition set in the Constitution. It is partisan politics on steroids.

inviting the head of a foreign government to address Congress without telling the Executive branch is not treason. Again, that is partisan politics.

Calling for war against Iran or any other country that has not attacked and is not in our interest is not treason.

When we discuss treason in the US as a crime, we must refer to the definition in the Constitution.

[treestar]

53. This is a society wide thing

With sensationalist journalists at the helm.

Nothing increases, it only "skyrockets." Nothing decreases, it only "plunges." If it is not at the most extreme of the verbal description, it appears people think it not interesting enough to get attention.

[Smarmie Doofus]

57. That's why "None Dare Call it Treason".

RW screed from back in the Goldwater era.

Point: we didn't start this unfortunate stroll up dumb-dumb lane.

But you're right; we shouldn't emulate those that ought not to be emulated.

The dilemma is that kind of demagoguery is often effective. Esp if you've got a multibillion dollar corporate media apparatus helping it along.

[samsingh]

59. this holier than thou attitude resulted in us labelled as wimps

and losing three presidential elections.

[cali]

67. that's beyond silly. it's a steaming pile.

[samsingh]

89. i think your line of reasoning is a steaming pile of whatever. and dangerous to our victory

in any election.

[rhett o rick]

77. I missed the "holier than thou" part in the OP. But I've heard that comment before.

Conservatives often describe people that are more intelligent as being "holier than thou". Maybe we should dumb down to the level of the conservatives so they will stop calling us wimps.

[LeftishBrit]

62. What I would like to add here...

is that, whatever the definition of treasonable actions, only actions can be treasonable. Thoughts, words, support for bad policies - none of this constitutes treason.

Thoughts and ideas and speech are protected by the First Amendment in America, or Article 10 of the Declaration of Human Rights in Europe, and we must be very careful of penalizing 'thoughtcrime'. The so-called 'post-9-11-world' mindset has already pushed us a little too much down the slippery slope to 1984.

[raven mad]

74. And if you look it up............. thank you, cali!

I have been remiss in recommending! The 47 are traitors - but not everyone we call traitor is one - and words make a difference.

[former9thward]

80. "Treason" joins the word "fascist" as words

that are used commonly without any real meaning or understanding of the word.

[Martin Eden]

82. I agree with the OP, and I think we should discuss what is and is not "treason"

We should not lower ourselves to the level of hyperbole the RWingnuts employ. To avoid that, we need to know the meaning of words.

Question:
Is it treason when US Senators collude with the leader of a forum government against the interests of the United States?

Specifically, Republican senators colluding with Netanyahu of Israel in trying to sabotage the nuclear arms accord with Iran. I believe their actions are against the intersts of the United States, but do THEY believe that and was that their intent? It's possible they (wrongly) believe the arms accord in NOT in US interests.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

97. No, it's not n/t

[Martin Eden]

100. I tend to agree

However, for the most part I don't think their attempts to sabotage this nuclear arms accord are are the product of objective disagreement or honorable intent. It's extreme partisanship intended to damage this president regardless of consequences to the country, with elements of pandering/manipulating the base and serving the interests of the MIC.

Irresponsible and reprehensible to be sure, but doesn't quite meet thr criteria for treason.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

102. Agree on all counts n/t

[progressoid]

91. Nice post Adolph.

[zappaman]

92. People throw the word "authoritarian" around as well

When they disagree with someone.
Just another word that has been made meaningless.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

98. Well said

It's amazing how often that word is thrown around here...way too many people obviously have no idea what it means.

[LanternWaste]

99. It's almost as epidemic as is the confusion between legal, classical and colloquial definitions of a

It's almost as epidemic as is the confusion between legal, classical and colloquial definitions of a given word.

[jobycom]

103. Not THAT easily defined, and the Constitutional definition could cover the 47 Republican Senators.

Read Wikipedia's entry on treason. It covers everything from the definition of "High Treason," to treason against any superior, to generalized colloquial uses in literature. Basically, any case of someone undermining or going behind the back of someone they should be supporting could be called treason, even if it doesn't fit the Constitutional definition.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So 47 US Senators tried to sabotage peace plans with one nation, Iran, because they supported another nation, Israel, because they want Iran to go to war with the US. That's pretty close to the definition. If a corporation were caught sabotaging the US government's attempts at peace just to start a war, many more people would be calling that treason.

And even if it doesn't fit the Constitution's definition, that doesn't mean it doesn't fit the general definition of a sense of betrayal of the goals of one's country.

I got no problem using a word to death if the word fits. Better than leaving the word on the shelf and only allowing historians to use the word to describe the ashes.

[Luminous Animal]

106. Is Israel our enemy? Is Iran? To which did we give aid and comfort?