From: MarkLFischer at aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:50:33 EDT Subject: [WSFA] Re: The end of a Washington mystery To: WSFAlist at WSFA.org Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> In a message dated 6/2/2005 7:41:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yahoo at omniphile.com writes: >Hmmm...I wonder if going to the Soviet Union and engaging in protests >against the United States during the Cold War years would fit that definition? Guidelines on this subject are fairly clear. Political expression, even political expression that an enemy might like to hear, does not qualify as treason. "Aid and comfort" means *actual* aid and comfort, not ego-stroking. Buying film for your friend the spy qualifies, wearing an "Up With Saddam" t-shirt does not. ''[T]he record does suggest that the clause was intended to guarantee nonviolent political processes against prosecution under any theory or charge, the burden of which was the allegedly seditious character of the conduct in question. The most obviously restrictive feature of the constitutional definition is its omission of any provision analogous to that branch of the Statute of Edward III which punished treason by compassing the death of the king. In a narrow sense, this provision perhaps had no proper analogue in a republic. However, to interpret the silence of the treason clause in this way alone does justice neither to the technical proficiency of the Philadelphia draftsmen nor to the practical statecraft and knowledge of English political history among the Framers and proponents of the Constitution. The charge of compassing the king's death had been the principal instrument by which 'treason' had been used to suppress a wide range of political opposition, from acts obviously dangerous to order and likely in fact to lead to the king's death to the mere speaking or writing of views restrictive of the royal authority.'' J. Hurst, The Law of Treason in the United States--Selected Essays (Westport, Conn.: 1971), 152-153. People throw terms with very clear legal definition around with gay abandon, and they don't actually understand what they're saying. I was amused, a few years back, to hear assorted pundits attempting to dust off the Alien and Sedition Acts to condemn dissent against the war...completely overlooking the repeal of those laws shortly after John Adams left office. Mark