Treason 102: Overt Acts

FrontPageMag.com ^ | December 20, 2001 | Henry Mark Holzer

[Radioheart]

Treason 102:  Overt Acts
By Henry Mark Holzer

There is no legal impediment to convicting Taliban John Walker of treason — but will political roadblocks get in the way? continue…

[Amore]

Thanks for providing this legal analysis. Everybody's been talking about charging him with treason, but no one's really explained what's required.

[MizSterious]

Even worse, few have even bothered to read the portion of the Constitution that deals with treason charges. One bozo on another thread even claimed it could be found in an article that doesn't exist (he said 8th, but there are only 7 articles).

Most of those who insist he must not be charged with treason either have never read the Constitution and the precedents that apply to cases like these, or they conveniently read what they want into the documents. Last night on MSNBC I even saw an attorney claim that war had to be declared before treason charges could apply--and we all know that isn't true at all, or at least we do if we read the document (Article III, Section 3).

[Amore]

I actually was browsing around, looking at some legal analyses of sedition. I didn't get very far though yet because both sedition and treason are mentioned in several contexts not relevant here. Also, someone mentioned, I think on Fox, that the relevant treason provision was 18 U.S.C. 2332.

[Uncle George]

His knowledge of the 9/11 attack and knowing he was fighting against the USA is PROOF ENOUGH TO HANG HIM!!!!!

[MizSterious]

Were you by any chance looking for this article? Also see post #107 on that thread.