Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Is George Bush a Traitor?
Is George Bush a traitor? To answer that you have to know what treason is. In America, finding the answer is easy. You simply look it up in the constitution where the Founding Fathers wrote up the definition for all to see:
SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
<link>
From this we can see there are two ways to commit treason: By levying war or by adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The question is has George Bush done either? The answer is possibly both. Aid and comfort has seen more precedent than levying war. In fact there is a test for whether or not it can be proven that a person has committed treason. This test date back to World War two and the cases: Cramer v. United States, Haupt v. United States and Kawakita v. United States . It lists:
- Intention to betray the United States,
- An overt act,
- Testified to by two witnesses,
- Which gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
<link>
The right-wing pundits have suggested that any number of people have committed treason in the last few years. Though truthfully their arguments would not pass the above test. In particular, the first component of the test protects legitimate dissent. Specifically acts “which do aid and comfort the enemy . . . but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason .“ This means that it is necessary to prove an actual intent to betray America and that betrayal by accident or incompetence does not meet the test. Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam is an example of an incident that meets three of the tests (overt act, witness, and aid) but not the fourth since her intent was display opposition to the war and not to betray America.
This means that despite the fact the Bush's leadership has greatly aided Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That he has not committed treason unless he has deliberately decided to assist Al Qaeda. I do not believe that George Bush is secretly an Al Qaeda member. Frankly I consider the thought to be ridiculous. If there is no adherence, there is no treason. End of story.
Or not.
Al Qaeda is not America's only enemy. Enemies need not be shadowy foreign terrorists. Enemies can also be domestic. Timothy McVeigh, the Weathermen and the Confederate states all were domestic enemies. May it is possible for a president to be an enemy of America?
The president is the head of state in America. Some people would argue that the head of state is the embodiment of the state and therefore cannot be an enemy of the state for they are the state. In America, this is not true since the head of state is not vested with ultimate authority. The fact that the congress can impeach a president demonstrates that a president is not the final and highest authority in the country. If there is a higher authority then it is possible to be an enemy of it. Therefore a president can be an enemy of America.
If a president is an enemy of America? How does that happen? Who or what is the authority that is that is attacked? The highest authority in America is the Constitution. It is to uphold the Constitution that the president swears during their inauguration, and it is the Constitution that they can betray.
Has George Bush intended to betray the constitution of the United States? Can we prove it? The Supreme Court has commented on the issue of intent. It has stated:
Intent need not be proved by two witnesses but may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the overt act.
<Link>
We have on record a number of comments that show Bush and his administration's contempt for the constitution.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
<Link>
Not proof, but it is circumstance.
He wages war without required Congressional declarations. He orders spying that is in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment. He permits tortures and extraordinary renditions that violate the 8th Amendment
<Link>
Not proof, but it is circumstance and maybe a pattern
Bush's anti-Constitutionalism was on full display today, as he echoed claims by his aides that it is somehow inappropriate for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to travel to Syria...
...The Constitution makes clear that the Congress has broad authority to actively participate in foreign and military affairs. After all, the founders created the legislative branch as the first defined branch of government and afforded to it the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," "to define and punish... offenses against the law of nations," "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
<Link>
Wow, this is getting to be quite a list, isn't it.
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
<Link>
What we have here is a clear pattern of contempt for the constitution. All of these acts are attempts to increase the power of the office of president without going through the steps needed to change the constitution.
There have been previous attempts by presidents to extend the power of the executive. Examples include:
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the suppression of free speech during and after World War I, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, McCarthyism, and the wiretapping of Vietnam-era dissenters
<Link>
A number of these have been brought to court and in a number of cases they have been upheld. None of these have been considered treasonous. Therefore overreaching the constitutional powers of the executive alone is not an act of treason. The key word here is act. None of the above constitutional abuses meet the test for overt act mentioned above. They can provide circumstance to prove intent but they are not the act needed to trigger treason.
Enter the prosecutor scandal.
In this scandal, it appears that a number of US prosecutors have been fired because they were now willing to selectively target democrats and ignore republican maleficence. The purpose of these firings was to win elections and create permanent republican control of government.
If it is proven true then Bush and his cronies will have deliberately attempted to subvert democracy and will have possibly committed election fraud. As well, if proven, it may meet the test for treason.
We have evidence that Bush and his conspirators wish to subvert the American Constitution (intent, check!). We have an overt act, subversion of the US prosecutors (overt act, possibly check!) to aid a conspiracy (enemy, check!) to control the American government (aid and comfort, check!).
And with two witnesses... we may have treason.
Update: I am not the only person with this idea. An American general is saying the same thing here.
