What are the legal requirements for treason?
Treason is an action rather than just talking. What he is doing would be more along the line of sedition.
It would be helpful if we would declare war. I have no idea why it is to Bush's advantage not to declare war. Congress was willing and Bush asked them not to.
That would be an interesting string to pull. What about being in a declared war is disadvantageous to the presidency?
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. 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.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article III, Section 3:
"Section 3. 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.
"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
Now that's the best question I've heard all day....if I say what I think should be done to traitors I'll be banned.
The legal requirements for treason have been visited several times in our nation's history. The founding fathers were particularly concerned that the treason laws not be abused as they had been in England, where the King used them to suppress opposing political views.
During the early 19th century, Aaron Burr was tried for treason, and subsequently the case of Ex Parte Bollman (1807) established that "levying war" required actually raising a body of men "assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonale purpose."
The Cramer Case established the "two witness principle," stating that "Every act, movement, deed and word of the defendant charged to consititute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."
The Haupt Case in 1947 established that "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" as an action is indeed treasonable, when the Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason for the first time in its history.
Essentially, in modern law, the act of treason is any direct raising of a force against the US Government to "levy war," or any overt and intentional act to give "Aid and Comfort" to an enemy of the United States.
I suppose the first thing that would need to be established is the Enemy status of any person or state, something that can be easily done if we have declared war. I don't know what the legal definition of "Enemy" is when we are not under a declaration of war.
Once you have established that someone, say a terrorist, is legally an Enemy, simply giving that person money or aiding them in any way would not be enough for Treason. It would have to be shown that the person knew they were aiding an Enemy, and that they intended their actions to harm the United States.
Similarly, simply stating that one desires to commit a treasonous act, or expressing views which are anti-American, does not constitute Treason. Action is required.
If anyone has more insight into treason as a legal principle, please respond!