Given the rise in statements about the manner in which this nation went to war in Iraq or our current military conduct of the conflict there, it is time to review the law that defines sedition. It is found in the U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2388: activities affecting armed forces during war.
[a] Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment of services of the United States, to the injury of service or the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
[b] If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection [a] of this section and more or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection of this section [a].
[c] Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
[d] This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
One hardly needs to be a lawyer to understand the terms of this definition, so when the chairman of the Democrat Party, Howard Dean, on December 5, during a San antonio radio interview, said, "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," it could be argued that it goes beyond mere opinion and would appear to be a willful effort to undermine the war effort.
I believe Dean's statement promotes the success of our enemies. It aligns the Democrat Party with everyone who opposes the conduct of the conflict with terrorist forces. These forces are part of a non-state organization, al Qaeda, which has declared war on the United States. These forces, both internal to Iraq and coming in from other nations have expressed their opposition to the liberation of that nation and enmity to ours, and are killing our soldiers.
Dean's statement is one of many claiming that the overthrow of the Saddam regime and the liberation of Iraq were achieved by a President who lied to the nation. It undermines the morale of our troops in the field. Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in response to Dean, "In predicting that america will lose the war in Iraq, Howard Dean is the latest national Democrat leader to embrace retreat and defeat in the central front in the war on terror."
Now, ask yourself if Mehlman's description of Dean's statement does not reflect the definition of sedition as stated in Title 18, Section 2388.
Dean's statement came just ten days before Iraqis went to the polls to elect, for the first time ever, a free and independent government to determine the future of their nation. Twice before they have risked their lives to achieve this and none of those elections would have occurred if the United States of america had not determined to liberate them and to wage war against the Islamic Jihad.
In a democracy, there is always room for debate, discussion, and disagreement about the conduct of our government, based on the "consent of the governed", but there is also a point at which the governed are expected and, indeed, required to join together in the common defense of our nation. That is what Title 18, Section 2388 addresses.
It is unlikely that Howard Dean will be indicted for sedition. It is unlikely that those who oppose military recruiters in schools and on the campuses of our nation's universities and colleges will be indicted for sedition. I suggest, however, based on my reading of the law, that these are, in fact, willful acts of sedition at a time when our military is tasked with the defense of Iraq as it transitions from a dictatorship to a democracy. Nor do I ignore the mission of our troops in afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.
The day is not far off when an attack on Iran's belligerence will have to be debated or acted upon in response to a sneak attack on Israel or simply Iran's refusal to not manufacture nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them. India and Pakistan have pulled back from the brink of a war that would have killed millions of their citizens, but it is the common opinion of experts that Iran's mullahs will not desist from mass murder. Every day they cry, "Death to america. Death to Israel."
Life in america has rebounded from the attack on September 11, 2001 that took the lives of more than 3,000 americans. Life in america has returned to a normality that belies the fact our nation remains the intended target for more attacks by the Islamofacists. The rising tide of statements like those of Howard Dean and others threatens the United States of america no less than the weapons intended to kill us.
The United States of america is in the midst of a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. It has restructured the government with a new Department of Homeland Security and has enacted The United States Patriot act. These are not idle, cosmetic actions. Thus, actions and statements contrary to the successful conduct of this modern, asymmetrical war constitute sedition.
What then is the appropriate punishment? Your vote. The next time you step into the voting booth, you need to ask yourself which political party has demonstrated the moral strength to address this new threat to freedom? I'll give you a hint. It is not the Democrat Party.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement