Wikileaks to release more info

[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.