Like so many other old ideas, the concept of treason seems to have lost its usefulness in today's american society of social creature comforts and lofty "love thy enemy more than thy country" precepts. It's almost treasonous to accuse anyone of treason today. But have some stretched the boundaries of honest dissent and strayed into treasonous territory for the sake of political gain?
Treason is defined differently in different parts of the world. In america, the U.S. Constitution defines it this way in article III, Section 3, Clause 1, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, (or) in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and Comfort."
The most recent case decisions I could find involving treason were Cramer v. United States, Haupt v. United States and Kawakita v. United States, all dating back to WWII. In all three cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there are four essential elements for conviction on treason charges. Those four essential elements are as follows; "(1) the defendant's intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) which gave aid and comfort to the enemy."
I believe that the current events I want to examine meet the definition of treason. But let's better understand the definition of treason before examining the events.
an "intention to betray" is defined by Webster's this way; "to give aid or information to an enemy; to deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance; to be false or disloyal; to divulge in a breach of confidence."
an "overt act" is defined as "an outward act that is done in furtherance of a conspiracy, of treason, or of the crime of attempt and that is usually a required element of such crimes for conviction even if it is legal in itself."
To provide "aid", "to help or furnish with help, support, or relief," and "comfort", "a condition or feeling of pleasurable ease, well-being, and contentment; Solace in time of grief or fear."
To "adhere", "to remain devoted to or be in support of something."
On this basis, I believe we have multiple acts of treason taking place in america today. But for the purpose of establishing what it means to commit an act of treason, I want to focus in on one particular example before discussing the others.
Using the definition of treason prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, the following event seems to provide a precise example.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on the November 14, 2005 edition of "Fox Sunday" divulged "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq--that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."
Senator Rockefeller was at the time of his trip, less than four months after 9/11, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which means he was entrusted with "sensitive secured information" as relates existing intelligence regarding Iraq WMD, ongoing intelligence operations looking into Iraq's WMD program and america's national security plans concerning the ongoing threat.
Syria was then and remains today on the State Departments list of terror regimes, clearly defined for some years as an enemy to america itself. But Syria was also a close ally to the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the very subject of the information Senator Rockefeller chose to share with Hussein's allies in Syria.
In the weeks that followed Senator Rockefellers' friendly visit with Syria, CIa operatives began reporting Iraqi convoys traveling across the Syrian border; - a suspected "outsourcing" of Iraq's WMD, which became the centerpiece of Colin Powell's case against Iraq before the UN. Those same WMD that would later go missing by the time america entered Iraq 12 months later. (See the entire time-line of events here in Rockefeller's Treachery by writer Joan Swirsky.)
What were Senator Rockefeller's "intentions" in his visit with three arab Middle Eastern states four months after 9/11, carrying with him and divulging "national security information" concerning america's intelligence and related policy towards Iraq? Was his trip an "overt act", and did his trip include a "violation of trust or allegiance" to the United States? Did the information he carried to known U.S. enemies, known allies of the Hussein regime, provide "aid or comfort" to america's enemies?
according to the definition of treason spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and Senator Rockefeller's own account, there has not been a more clear-cut case of treason in modern history. Yet the so-called american press has been completely silent on the subject, which is of course, a form of "aiding and abetting" in and of itself.
If you can't wrap your mind around Senator Rockefeller's act of treason, there is no chance you will comprehend the more subtle acts of treason happening daily on the world stage.
If this morning, our news headlines read "Osama bin Laden, ayman al-Zawahri and abu Musab al Zarqawi killed in midnight raids on al Qaeda hideouts", what would the reaction of nearly every american, especially those serving in forward combat positions be? Immense joy? Relief? a sense of great accomplishment? a sense of victory even? Or at least an impending victory?
Then imagine what the reaction is among our enemies when their headlines read "U.S. Senator Dick Durbin accuses american soldiers of being Nazis and terrorists", or "U.S. House Rep. John Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of american troops and an end to hostilities in the Middle East", or "U.S. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean announces america CaN'T win in Iraq", or "U.S. Senator and prospective Presidential candidate John Kerry accuses american soldiers of terrorizing innocent Iraqi kids in the dead of night as they sleep".
These are the exact same words often uttered by our enemies in their efforts to drum up support for their cause.
The reaction of our enemy to these statements from U.S. officials is no different than our reaction would be. They are "comforted" by these headlines. Their mission of destroying american soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians is "aided" by these headlines and even worse…- their acts of terror are "justified" by these headlines…
Do these actions by supposed american leaders constitute an act of treason? according to the definition prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, they do. But according to the lack of action taken against Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia for his direct overt act of aiding the enemy, they don't and they won't.
Sadly, too many americans today see all of these acts as only acts of dissent against an administration they love to hate. Their hate is so strong, that they can't see past their efforts to destroy a President and see the destruction they cause on the other side. Or, they simply don't care about the damage they cause because the end, winning seats in 2006 and 2008, justifies the means.
a simple act of dissent? Not really… Politically motivated rhetoric at its worst? at the very least!
No american politician has the nerve to publicly accuse another american politician of treason today. The old media are complicit in the effort and nearly half of the american population sees nothing wrong with undermining their country, its principles, its security or its troops, especially if it somehow serves their political agenda.
Where does that leave real americans truly concerned about our national security, the american way of life and our children's future?