Posted on Feb 17, 2015
Traitor and treason. Why do you think we are so afraid to use these terms and apply them to situations that clearly apply?
3.03K
20
15
1
1
0
Are we so afraid of offending someone that we will allow traitorous and treasonous acts, even to the point of our own demise?
Posted in these groups: 
National Security
National Security
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 8
3
3
0
I think we're afraid because these offensive are punishable by death (by firing squad at that)...and in today's politicical climate anyone can be set up using social media and gossip. It would be the Red Scare all over again. You think we're ready for the new McCarthyism? Besides, were all being spied on as it is, no worries.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
The same Section of the Constitution that defines treason also states that Congress shall set the punishment, 18 USC 2381 doesn't specify firing squad, only, "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."
Lethal injection is currently the sole method of federal or military executions.
And, as you see, death is not the sole possibility.
Lethal injection is currently the sole method of federal or military executions.
And, as you see, death is not the sole possibility.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Do they clearly apply? Treason, in the US has a very specific definition--the only offense defined by 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."
Not only is it very narrow, but the burden of proof is elevated.
"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."
Not only is it very narrow, but the burden of proof is elevated.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Not only is the only crime specifically defined by the Constitution, it's one of only three crimes mentioned by name in the Constitution (Piracy and Counterfeiting being the other two).
With the abuses our Founders & Framers suffered at England's hands, they built protections into the Constitution itself to safeguard the citizenry from similar issues.
With the abuses our Founders & Framers suffered at England's hands, they built protections into the Constitution itself to safeguard the citizenry from similar issues.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think people are just afraid to call a spade a spade. The media in my opinion is one of the worse in spinning certain situations. For example, some media outlets made Snowden sound like a hero and a whistleblower when in fact he was a traitor and committed treason.
(2)
(0)
SFC William Swartz Jr
I couldn't agree more..between Snowden and Manning we seem to have "lost" our way in stating what is treasonous. I can remember instances during the '70s and '80s where similar acts were committed by servicemembers or contractors that we had no problem with calling them what they were, treason, but seems to me, and this is only my opinion, that with the end of the Cold War, these acts couldn't possibly happen, at least in the eyes of some......
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google