Fully understand this view of these people as it's pretty much my own. Here's the rub...
The Treason Clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1) not only defines treason as you described, but it also lays out 2 essential elements of which one or the other must be met for conviction:
Fully understand this view of these people as it's pretty much my own. Here's the rub...
The Treason Clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1) not only defines treason as you described, but it also lays out 2 essential elements of which one or the other must be met for conviction:
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.
A very high bar, and rightfully so for a number of reasons. Doesn't make the fact that a prosecution against these various miscreants on a charge of treason would never be brought any more palatable, but meeting that bar would be impossible on one element (no attack of conscience would provoke a confession from someone when the element of witnesses can't be met), and nearly impossible on the other. Sedition and other lesser charges much easier to be proved.
Pesky thing sometimes, that darned Constitution. And frustrating, too. We know what these people are in the de facto sense. Proving they are that in a court of law is a whole 'nother thing. Odds of them ever legally being branded as traitors are about zero to none. But we know they are betrayers of this nation, and I truly hope and pray that one day they will get what's comin' to 'em for that.
BTW...I'm not a lawyer either. Had to use Google to look up the precise language. I'd really like to be wrong about this for obvious reasons, but on the other hand it's a good thing that such a stringent standard exists, lest a charge of treason become as common as any other political football.
I agree; stringency is, especially in this matter, good and necessary. Still, when clips of some U.S. citizens are broadcast on Russian media, known for its fair and balanced approach, to support its war of aggression and criminal acts...
Believe me, Don, I get it. I really do. And if the bona fides could be obtained and the requirements met, go for it, Baby! And if volunteers were needed to tie the hangman's knots, you'd have to fight me to be first in line.
I definitely should have been a little more precise in my metaphor for my disgust with and loathing for these people. I apologize. I'm not advocating for violence, or even for the death penalty. And it's unclear to me if that is even now an option for a conviction for treason, since a quick G search gives conflicting info from different sources, and I wanted to respond to this quickly, so haven't taken the time to sort it out.
Actually, I'm not in favor of capital punishment for anything for a number of reasons, but not because I'm some soft-on-crime bleeding heart do-gooder. In fact, my reasons can pretty much be boiled down to the opposite...capital punishment is letting the perpetrator of such heinous crimes that seem to warrant it off too easily. When the trap is sprung, or the switch thrown or the plunger depressed, the punishment is over. Much more appropriate to deprive the criminal of his most precious possession short of life itself - his freedom - for as long as possible, that being the rest of his life. And I'm not talkin' Club Fed here. I feel those convicted of something that instinctively or intuitively would seem to merit a death warrant should do the hardest time there is for the rest of their natural life, short only of the line of cruel and unusual.
So, let me offer a different metaphor: You'd have to fight me to be first in line to throw away the key. Sorry, just couldn't help myself.
Hope I've now made my position clear on this. Again, apologies for letting the strength of my feelings weaken my writing about this subject. I'm not happy with myself when I do that, and try to guard against it. Not always successful, so thanks for speaking up. I wouldn't want my mistake to reflect badly upon your own opinion of things in some guilt by association thing, since I was saying that we seemed to be in agreement on the nefarious and even heinous nature of these people's actions.
Fully understand this view of these people as it's pretty much my own. Here's the rub...
The Treason Clause of the Constitution (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1) not only defines treason as you described, but it also lays out 2 essential elements of which one or the other must be met for conviction:
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.
A very high bar, and rightfully so for a number of reasons. Doesn't make the fact that a prosecution against these various miscreants on a charge of treason would never be brought any more palatable, but meeting that bar would be impossible on one element (no attack of conscience would provoke a confession from someone when the element of witnesses can't be met), and nearly impossible on the other. Sedition and other lesser charges much easier to be proved.
Pesky thing sometimes, that darned Constitution. And frustrating, too. We know what these people are in the de facto sense. Proving they are that in a court of law is a whole 'nother thing. Odds of them ever legally being branded as traitors are about zero to none. But we know they are betrayers of this nation, and I truly hope and pray that one day they will get what's comin' to 'em for that.
BTW...I'm not a lawyer either. Had to use Google to look up the precise language. I'd really like to be wrong about this for obvious reasons, but on the other hand it's a good thing that such a stringent standard exists, lest a charge of treason become as common as any other political football.
I agree; stringency is, especially in this matter, good and necessary. Still, when clips of some U.S. citizens are broadcast on Russian media, known for its fair and balanced approach, to support its war of aggression and criminal acts...
Believe me, Don, I get it. I really do. And if the bona fides could be obtained and the requirements met, go for it, Baby! And if volunteers were needed to tie the hangman's knots, you'd have to fight me to be first in line.
I don't wish for hangings, shipmate.
I definitely should have been a little more precise in my metaphor for my disgust with and loathing for these people. I apologize. I'm not advocating for violence, or even for the death penalty. And it's unclear to me if that is even now an option for a conviction for treason, since a quick G search gives conflicting info from different sources, and I wanted to respond to this quickly, so haven't taken the time to sort it out.
Actually, I'm not in favor of capital punishment for anything for a number of reasons, but not because I'm some soft-on-crime bleeding heart do-gooder. In fact, my reasons can pretty much be boiled down to the opposite...capital punishment is letting the perpetrator of such heinous crimes that seem to warrant it off too easily. When the trap is sprung, or the switch thrown or the plunger depressed, the punishment is over. Much more appropriate to deprive the criminal of his most precious possession short of life itself - his freedom - for as long as possible, that being the rest of his life. And I'm not talkin' Club Fed here. I feel those convicted of something that instinctively or intuitively would seem to merit a death warrant should do the hardest time there is for the rest of their natural life, short only of the line of cruel and unusual.
So, let me offer a different metaphor: You'd have to fight me to be first in line to throw away the key. Sorry, just couldn't help myself.
Hope I've now made my position clear on this. Again, apologies for letting the strength of my feelings weaken my writing about this subject. I'm not happy with myself when I do that, and try to guard against it. Not always successful, so thanks for speaking up. I wouldn't want my mistake to reflect badly upon your own opinion of things in some guilt by association thing, since I was saying that we seemed to be in agreement on the nefarious and even heinous nature of these people's actions.
Problem = None. I completely agree.
Re: Navy Chief. TYFYS. Genuinely appreciated.