(no subject)
Feb. 7th, 2003 02:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivkaSomeone at the New York Sun has an astoundingly poor grasp of the Constitution (link via Tapped.) In regard to the anti-war protests scheduled for February 15th, the Sun recommends that
The word "treason" sure gets bandied about an awful lot in modern American discourse. (Take a look - or rather, don't - at Ann Coulter's new book.) The trouble with most of these arguments is that the Constitution is extremely specific about what constitutes treason: only levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. The Sun's claim is that Saddam Hussein is "comforted" by the existence of the American anti-war movement. Isn't that neat? I bet that Kim Jong Il is "comforted" by Bush's lack of inclination to invade North Korea - shouldn't the Sun be calling for a treason prosecution there? Once you start down that road, there won't ever be any need to stop... after all, the United States has a lot of "enemies," if you define that term nebulously enough, and almost any action that isn't overtly hostile could be said to produce some sort of emotion of "comfort."
Fortunately, the law sees the matter differently. Two centuries of Supreme Court decisions make it clear that "treason requires proof of an overt act, in order to forestall using the treason charge against unpopular speech or publication in the course of domestic political controversy." All this talk of treason truly amounts to is the further poisoning and uglification of public discourse.
Edited to add: Another, less technical, discussion of treason law can be found here.
So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution. Thus fully respecting not just some, but all of the constitutional principles at stake.
The word "treason" sure gets bandied about an awful lot in modern American discourse. (Take a look - or rather, don't - at Ann Coulter's new book.) The trouble with most of these arguments is that the Constitution is extremely specific about what constitutes treason: only levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. The Sun's claim is that Saddam Hussein is "comforted" by the existence of the American anti-war movement. Isn't that neat? I bet that Kim Jong Il is "comforted" by Bush's lack of inclination to invade North Korea - shouldn't the Sun be calling for a treason prosecution there? Once you start down that road, there won't ever be any need to stop... after all, the United States has a lot of "enemies," if you define that term nebulously enough, and almost any action that isn't overtly hostile could be said to produce some sort of emotion of "comfort."
Fortunately, the law sees the matter differently. Two centuries of Supreme Court decisions make it clear that "treason requires proof of an overt act, in order to forestall using the treason charge against unpopular speech or publication in the course of domestic political controversy." All this talk of treason truly amounts to is the further poisoning and uglification of public discourse.
Edited to add: Another, less technical, discussion of treason law can be found here.
