Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c.../24.html#f1300
I guess my point would be that there may be, and evidently are, areas of disagreement between attorneys, judges, etc on what reaches the level of treason. Hence so many split decisions by the courts in the past.
|
Thanks for the link. That's an annotation, so one would hope it accurately reflects what the cases say, though only a lazy attorney would rely on them. Many is the time I've read an opposing attorney's brief and thought "You just relied on annotations, didn't you? Because if you'd actually read the case, you would've known that the court didn't quite say what you thought it said."
Not saying these annotations are wrong. Just saying I'd want to actually read the cases themselves.
Quote:
|
I understand, as well, that treason is extremely hard to prove as it was designed by our framers to be so. They didn't want us to become like England under the monarchies with treason being a relatively easy thing to accuse and convict one of.
|
Exactly, but they didn't just want it to be hard to prove. They wanted it to be limited, so that more than disagreement with the government would be required for treason.
I still think the major hurdle here would be tying Manning to the US's enemies.