Treason
Here's a question for all you politically-minded types:
Why isn't anyone charged with treason anymore? This thought is brought about by the most recent arrest of a terrorist cell in America. Five of the seven men who are accused with plotting to attack the Sears Tower and a Federal building in Florida are American citizens. One of them has even been quoted as saying that he was recruiting, "for a mission to wage war on the United States government." He also stated that he was planning on a "full ground war" in order to "kill all the devils we can." Now granted, seven guys aren't going to be able to stage much of a ground war, but they can use terrorist war tactics to kill a lot of people before they get caught. Thankfully they've been stopped before they could manage anything, but my original question still holds: why aren't people charged with treason anymore? I'll bet you anything that these men won't be. Even John Walker Lindh, the guy who went over to fight for the Taliban wasn't charged with it. Instead, he was charged with conspiracy to do something or other.
Treason is the only crime that is defined in the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers did this to ensure that leaders wouldn't be able to charge people all willy-nilly like the King of England did. But just because it was clearly defined to prevent abuses doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it at all. In fact, if the crime fits into that narrow definition, we should make a point to use it!
For those of you who don't own their own copy of the Constitution (and even that's no excuse in the Internet age), I will reproduce Article III, Section 3 for you.
"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, the newest terrorist cell has openly admitted to wishing to levy war against the United States. That's strike one for them. Also, by aligning themselves with al-Qaida and working to support their plan of killing us "infidel Americans,"
they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Strike two. They were also discovered because of an FBI mole who was present at several of their meetings. That's at least one eyewitness, and I'll be very surprised if they didn't have other guys who saw what was going on as well. They also undoubtedly have electronic evidence (bugs, wiretaps, video, etc.)of the crimes as well. So there's strike three which ensures that a conviction is permissible under the US Constitution.
I know it's not popular with everyone, but one of the reasons I'd like to see traitors charged more often is because Congress has set the punishment (18 U.S.C. § 2381) as "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." Since no reasonable court would give traitors the minimum punishment, they would probably be held to the strictest measure possible, capital punishment. My belief is that if they're so eager to kill us, we should be able to kill them back.
Will these treasonous men actually be charged with the crime they committed? My guess is no.
Why isn't anyone charged with treason anymore? This thought is brought about by the most recent arrest of a terrorist cell in America. Five of the seven men who are accused with plotting to attack the Sears Tower and a Federal building in Florida are American citizens. One of them has even been quoted as saying that he was recruiting, "for a mission to wage war on the United States government." He also stated that he was planning on a "full ground war" in order to "kill all the devils we can." Now granted, seven guys aren't going to be able to stage much of a ground war, but they can use terrorist war tactics to kill a lot of people before they get caught. Thankfully they've been stopped before they could manage anything, but my original question still holds: why aren't people charged with treason anymore? I'll bet you anything that these men won't be. Even John Walker Lindh, the guy who went over to fight for the Taliban wasn't charged with it. Instead, he was charged with conspiracy to do something or other.
Treason is the only crime that is defined in the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers did this to ensure that leaders wouldn't be able to charge people all willy-nilly like the King of England did. But just because it was clearly defined to prevent abuses doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it at all. In fact, if the crime fits into that narrow definition, we should make a point to use it!
For those of you who don't own their own copy of the Constitution (and even that's no excuse in the Internet age), I will reproduce Article III, Section 3 for you.
"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, the newest terrorist cell has openly admitted to wishing to levy war against the United States. That's strike one for them. Also, by aligning themselves with al-Qaida and working to support their plan of killing us "infidel Americans,"
they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Strike two. They were also discovered because of an FBI mole who was present at several of their meetings. That's at least one eyewitness, and I'll be very surprised if they didn't have other guys who saw what was going on as well. They also undoubtedly have electronic evidence (bugs, wiretaps, video, etc.)of the crimes as well. So there's strike three which ensures that a conviction is permissible under the US Constitution.
I know it's not popular with everyone, but one of the reasons I'd like to see traitors charged more often is because Congress has set the punishment (18 U.S.C. § 2381) as "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." Since no reasonable court would give traitors the minimum punishment, they would probably be held to the strictest measure possible, capital punishment. My belief is that if they're so eager to kill us, we should be able to kill them back.
Will these treasonous men actually be charged with the crime they committed? My guess is no.