Replies

beg yer pardon?

She said, "No war, no treason" and she may very well be correct. The United States of America has not officially declared war upon anyone. That is a very important technical sticking point in regards to trying him or anyone else for treason in this circumstance.

The rule of law may save this man's life and that is as it should be if it is established that the failure of Congress to make a declaration of war exonerates him from a charge of treason. I think he is despicable and merits hanging for his actions. The failure of our legislative leadership to declare war is also despicable but I am sure it will pass unnoticed by the electorate during the next round of elections. Sometimes, I despair for our future in a world of sound bites and hair sprayed visages spewed by our electronic media on a too willing couch dwelling audience.

The US Constitution reads:
Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Ada Coddington wrote No war, no treason.

And riley1992 wrote She said, "No war, no treason" and she may very well be correct. The United States of America has not officially declared war upon anyone.

By this logic, if Johnny Bin Walker was one of the hijackers on the aircraft and piloted one of the planes into the WTC towers, and the US then declared war, he would not have been a traitor because the US had not declared war at the time the events occurred. Are we saying only actions after the US declares war would be traitorous or could actions that involve levying war against the US be traitorous?

I am a little perplexed that we assume that since a state of war doesn't exist that treason is impossible. The constitution does not require a state of war to exist only that the accused levyed war against us. Comments?

I don't think so, Riley. If a citizen joins others in making war against the US, whether or not war has been declared has no bearing on whether or not the citizen was knowingly shooting at American soldiers. It seems to me that the "no war, no treason" defense can't be stretched to cover the act of firing a rifle at US troops.

Politicians seem to like undeclared wars because they can profit from their treason under that technicality, but they usually refrain from actually firig on our troops. There's not any money in that end of the war anyway. ;-)

"She said, "No war, no treason" and she may very well be correct. The United States of America has not officially declared war upon anyone. That is a very important technical sticking point in regards to trying him or anyone else for treason in this circumstance."

Nope, she is wrong. As I recall, there were executions for treason against the US during the "Cold War", for which there was no declaration of war, either. The section on treason in the Constitution says not one word about any necessity for a declaration of war.