Wikileaks to release more info

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As a lawyer (good or not is debatable DF ), I do not agree.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." More has to happen than the information getting to enemies of the United States. A traitor must actually "adhere" -- affirmatively join with and give allegience or support to -- our enemies.

Sometimes, when the law will support the splitting of the hairs. A court buying the splitting of hairs is a different matter, particularly if we're talking about SCOUTS.

I would have thought that someone who has expressed sympathy for the Tea Party movement would be more concerned with strict adherence to the Constitution than with splitting hairs.

I'd say that if he's not brought up on treason charges, it has nothing to do with the current administration and everything to do with the constitutional definition of treason and the Rule of Law.

MC, please read my previous post. I apologize if you thought I was belittling your abilities. I was not.

I see an "or" in the Constitution which kind of changes my perception of what it means. I.E. - or ... giving them aid and comfort. This is where the lawyers could/would split hairs.

Where I might see a case for treason others obviously will not. I believe the charge of treason in a military court could stand as the methodology for trying a person is somewhat different from what we laymen see in our everyday judicial system. Not an expert on military trials but just an opinion.

As we have discussed before, I am a States Rights advocate though I do believe in the Tea Party movement and much of what it stands for/against.

Our DOJ is a joke. For years now we have enforced laws that we conveniently chose and ignored those that are not what we politically wish them to be. This goes for the Bush/Clinton/Bush and Obama administrations. But that is another thread.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

MC, please read my previous post. I apologize if you thought I was belittling your abilities. I was not.

Not to worry. I didn't take anything otherwise at all.

I see an "or" in the Constitution which kind of changes my perception of what it means. I.E. - or ... giving them aid and comfort. This is where the lawyers could/would split hairs.

Only if the lawyer also rewrites the Constitution, or at least the rule of grammar.

The "or" comes between "levying War against them" and "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So merely giving enemies aid and comfort is not enough to satisfy the definition. The aid and comfort is linked to adhering to the enemy. So the bottom line is that for treason, one either has to actually fight for the enemy or at the least give some allegiance to the enemy, with aid and comfort in furtherance of that allegiance.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As a lawyer (good or not is debatable DF ), I do not agree.

Your fan club believes you are only capable of good...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The "or" comes between "levying War against them" and "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So merely giving enemies aid and comfort is not enough to satisfy the definition. The aid and comfort is linked to adhering to the enemy. So the bottom line is that for treason, one either has to actually fight for the enemy or at the least give some allegiance to the enemy, with aid and comfort in furtherance of that allegiance.

To further this, the noun use of "comfort" is an archaic one, meaning literally "assistance or strengthening aid" and not the modern senses of the term.

So ... yeah, as I'm no Constitutional scholar (but I appear to know a good one ), I'll agree with MC's assertion that "tough road to hoe" would be the minimum here.

There are better ways to get a conviction, and I assume that's all anyone really wants.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

To further this, the noun use of "comfort" is an archaic one, meaning literally "assistance or strengthening aid" and not the modern senses of the term.

Exactly. Thanks for adding this.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

Yeah, we'll certainly see what's going on with those rape charges soon enough, I think.

Although the victim blaming has taken a different route this time: Instead of "she deserved it" it's "she trapped him because she's a radical feminist!"

Yes, ugh I hate that. I don't doubt her story, but I don't really know her story either. Reports have varied wildly from this being a clear case of her withdrawing consent for sex after finding out he wasn't using a condom and him continuing which is clear rape, to allegations that the Swedish law is any sex without a condom is rape which is afaik false, to reports that one or both women really just wanted him to be forced to consent to STD testing and not to bring rape charges.

In addition the way the prosecutors have handled the case, not interviewing him when they could, charging, dropping, recharging (or threatening to charge, dropping it and picking it up) and so on has made me rather cynical about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

To further this, the noun use of "comfort" is an archaic one, meaning literally "assistance or strengthening aid" and not the modern senses of the term.

I still prefer to imagine people sending Soviet spies chicken noodle soup and tucking them into bed...

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes, ugh I hate that. I don't doubt her story, but I don't really know her story either. Reports have varied wildly from this being a clear case of her withdrawing consent for sex after finding out he wasn't using a condom and him continuing which is clear rape, to allegations that the Swedish law is any sex without a condom is rape which is afaik false, to reports that one or both women really just wanted him to be forced to consent to STD testing and not to bring rape charges.

In addition the way the prosecutors have handled the case, not interviewing him when they could, charging, dropping, recharging (or threatening to charge, dropping it and picking it up) and so on has made me rather cynical about the whole thing.

The media's all over the map on this one. I suppose we'll see what happens when the Swedes get a hold of him physically (I believe he's still in London, right)?

Or they could send Lisbeth Salander to tattoo his belly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

The media's all over the map on this one. I suppose we'll see what happens when the Swedes get a hold of him physically (I believe he's still in London, right)?

Or they could send Lisbeth Salander to tattoo his belly.

I believe so, or was at last notice. He lost his hearing to get bail and stay in London while he appeals the extradition I think. Because of the type of warrant there isn't a lot of review upfront due to EU agreements.

[dreamseeker]

Originally Posted by agzg

The media's all over the map on this one. I suppose we'll see what happens when the Swedes get a hold of him physically (I believe he's still in London, right)?

Or they could send Lisbeth Salander to tattoo his belly.

!!!!!

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Only if the lawyer also rewrites the Constitution, or at least the rule of grammar.

Need your expertize here. If this is so cut and dried on treason, why do we have split decisions on it based on Constitutional issues?

Reference the Burr, Cramer and Haupt cases. With the Haupt case being a really strange one as:

"...it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason--defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant--were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said: ''No matter whether young Haupt's mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him."

That is a pretty broad brush they painted with.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Need your expertize here. If this is so cut and dried on treason, why do we have split decisions on it based on Constitutional issues?

Not to speak for MC, but the answer is likely the same as everything else that requires judicial review: different situations require different applications, different people perform the application, etc.

In other words - why require a judge to rule on anything? After all, the laws are there in black and white ... particularly with something that is as serious as treason, you will naturally have this.

[trimmed]
That is a pretty broad brush they painted with.

That application, no matter how broad, isn't at odds with MC's estimation of this specific case at all, I don't think.

It's probably not correct to think that because a "broad" interpretation was taken in one dissimilar instance that another broad interpretation (in another direction) would thus be appropriate. You can only apply like to like.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not to speak for MC . . . .

You did fine speaking for me.

GW, where is that quote from? Unless it's from a court opinion, then there may be an additional issue of someone characterizing a court's opinion in a way that doesn't really reflect the holding of the court. Regardless, I wouldn't/couldn't really comment on it without knowing the source.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You did fine speaking for me.

GW, where is that quote from? Unless it's from a court opinion, then there may be an additional issue of someone characterizing a court's opinion in a way that doesn't really reflect the holding of the court. Regardless, I wouldn't/couldn't really comment on it without knowing the source.

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.

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.

I believe in this case reasonable people can disagree on whether this reaches the level of treason. In my opinion it does but others, as evidenced in previous posts, do not. As I said before, I don't believe treason will ever be charged to Manning for a variety of reasons. The level of difficulty in trying this type case being one, as well as a weak DOJ and the lack of political will.

[MysticCat]

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.

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.