Taliban Hunt Them Down

[Chalenge]

The reason why we don't charge people with treason all that often in the US is the burden of proof required to support the charge of treason.  In the US, before someone can be convicted of treason it requires at least two witnesses to the same overt act or an open confession in court.  That's why guys like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were charged with espionage instead of treason.

Thats not true. The only requirement is that there be evidence of overt acts in adhering to the enemy to give him comfort. Witnesses are not required and the nation itself does not need to be at war. In this case even if you tried to argue that the intent does not exist the merit of the weight of evidence and the obvious lack of remorse condemns the matter to conclusion.

This is not a U.S. matter except in the case of the PFC who did not directly comfort the enemy but mishandling of the documents could cost him his freedom forever. The primary culprit is in Australia.

[Ack-Ack]

Thats not true. The only requirement is that there be evidence of overt acts in adhering to the enemy to give him comfort. Witnesses are not required and the nation itself does not need to be at war. In this case even if you tried to argue that the intent does not exist the merit of the weight of evidence and the obvious lack of remorse condemns the matter to conclusion.

This is not a U.S. matter except in the case of the PFC who did not directly comfort the enemy but mishandling of the documents could cost him his freedom forever. The primary culprit is in Australia.

It is true and I am correct.

To support a conviction of treason in the United States, which is specifically defined in the Constitution and requires two witnesses to the overt act or an open confession in court.  Treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution as ""levying war" against the United States or providing "aid and comfort" to its enemies."

Which is why less then 36 people have been tried and convicted of treason in the United States and why the United States will have a tough time convicting Adam Gadahn of treason if he's ever captured.


ack-ack

[oakranger]

It is true and I am correct.

To support a conviction of treason in the United States, which is specifically defined in the Constitution and requires two witnesses to the overt act or an open confession in court.  Treason is narrowly defined in the Constitution as ""levying war" against the United States or providing "aid and comfort" to its enemies."

Which is why less then 36 people have been tried and convicted of treason in the United States.


ack-ack

ACK-ACK is right.  Gleen Beck was talking about what it take to convict a person for treason about two week ago. His vary remark are, "...it take two witnesses...."

[bj229r]

I believe the Wikileaks guy lives in Iceland, so the only legal thing we could do is yell at him from afar (and throw that PFC in prison for life, if in fact he was the source)

[greens]

The new America doesn't charge anyone with treason because it might hurt someone's feelings and we might be considered mean.

kinda like protecting gays and bailing out rich guys

[Chalenge]

ACK-ACK is right.  Gleen Beck was talking about what it take to convict a person for treason about two week ago. His vary remark are, "...it take two witnesses...."

No... as defined in 1947 the Supreme Court ruled that all it took was testimony from "prudent investigators" (FBI for instance and in the case in question at the time) that the overt act had occurred (Haupt vs United States - 330 US 631).

EDIT: Case in question: http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/631/case.html

[oakranger]

No... as defined in 1947 the Supreme Court ruled that all it took was testimony from "prudent investigators" (FBI for instance and in the case in question at the time) that the overt act had occurred (Haupt vs United States - 330 US 631).

EDIT: Case in question: http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/631/case.html

ah, i see.  mis-understand you.

[DREDger]

It's great that there are sources like Wikileaks for leaked documents, especially when the documents may reveal criminal activity in the government, but regardless there should be some level of ethics in this. It's not necessary to publish all the names when there's a real possibility of danger to them and they really don't deserve it. I don't care if some real scumback gets killed, but these informants are not the bad guys nor the soldiers at the frontline.

I would agree to some extent,  freedom of the press and all of that is the cornerstone to our society.  And especially if the leaks are revealing criminal behavior or war crimes.

However this Wikileaks did not properly 'vet' the classified documents.  They just published them all for the sake of publishing classified documents.  A seasoned newspaper staff would likely have been more professional, more careful.  Wikileaks extends advantage to those who fight against liberal western democracy, ironically enough.

Wikileaks is guilty of irresponsible behavior.

Those who leaked the information are traitors.  Whether they are guilty of treason as defined in the constitution, probably not by the strictest terms, but guilty of some severe crime nontheless. 

They have put their brothers lives in danger, our countrymen, my friends... against an enemy that stands for all we are against. 

[Flench]

Make me President and I will fix the problem. I promise! 

You got my vote 

[guncrasher]

You got my vote 

he'll probably tax to death anybody that shot him down in the game  .

semp

[Babalonian]

Traders the media are.  WTFG!

Irresponsible nitwits and individuals capable of manslaughtering inoccents exist in a corner of every industry.  By your sarcastic mentality if one doctor gets busted for drugging up and stealing homeless people's kidneys, then we should just ban the entire medical practice and all professional practitioners of it.

I hope some DA out there decides to show whoever leaked this what a real investigation is.