Having said that, I'd like to correct something I said on a Spaces where I commented that organizing with a foreign power to overthrow our government is "the very definition of treason."I did some legal research and that's not quite true.The federal law governing this is 18 U.S. Code § 2381, which reads as follows:"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."The question then becomes, what is an "enemy" that must be "adhere[d]" to in order for it to be treason?Like with most complex issues of law, there is not a 100% straightforward answer, but an 1863 SCOTUS case, U.S. v. Greathouse, suggests that an "enemy" in this context must be in an open state of armed conflict with the U.S. for a nation to be an "enemy."So, technically, the Color Revolution plotters are likely not legally committing "treason" unless they are coordinating with Iran, the only nation we are currently in armed conflict with. (And they may well be, who knows!)
To the contrary, both the statute and the Constitution's text on the subject contain the "or" operator. No foreign government and no foreign enemy is necessary for a behavior to constitute treason. Treason can be fully constituted by waging war against the United States.
Attempting any sort of revolution against the government is a species of warfighting, 'color' revolution or not. The attempt to supplant the government by revolution, however often they proclaim that they are devoted to nonviolent means, is a species of warfighting. There is no way the nonviolence will prove to be more than rhetorical, but even supposing it were possible -- say, perhaps, by enlisting an AI swarm that effectively but nonviolently disabled the existing government so you could swoop in and impose another -- you would have destroyed a government without the consent of the governed, and replaced it with one to which they did not consent.
Treason can be the right thing to do, and sometimes -- often! -- has been. It is a wager of battle, however, and losers of that wager pay with their lives. It should be undertaken only by those who honestly believe in it and are willing to gamble their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
1 comment:
I disagree with your analysis on treason here-- the reason that the Constitution is so specific about what can be called treason, is that the Founding Fathers knew that the old regimes in Europe would call any objection to a government action "treason" as a way of shutting down debate or reform and green-lighting violence against their opponents. They knew first hand how bad for society this was, because it ultimately prevented the removal of corrupt and incompetent governors and unjust laws.
So, "treason" can only be waging war against the United States, or adhering to and giving comfort to their enemies; and it also must be overt acts, not mere words. Waging war against the US might indeed be treason, but that would require open, armed actions-- no one on either side has done so. And, as Cynical Publius says, the only war currently underway against the US is by the Islamic Republic of Iran. If the "color revolutionists" are giving them aid and comfort, no evidence has yet been made public.
A "color revolution" that amounts to things like public marches, calls for new leadership, etc., is not a "revolution" in any real sense. That is, the "color revolutions" you mention haven't actually changed the form of government in any of the countries you named-- they merely made wholesale changes in the people in government. (Compare to the Russian revolution in 1991, which did in fact remove and replace the Soviet Union.)
Now... if military officers (on the retired list or not) are working behind the scenes to encourage the breakdown of public order in the US and unlawful removal of the President, they may well be guilty of crimes and may well face recall and court-martial for it. But that is not "treason", that is "mutiny and sedition".
--Janet
Post a Comment