You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
treason?
- Thread starter Wiley
- Start date
The Chicago Tribune during WW2 was stupid enough to print that the US project code named MAGIC had cracked the secret Japanese encryption. They didn't get charged with treason, there is no accountability from the fishwraps and the government doesn't care.
They'll only shoot your family and burn down your house if the barrel on your shotgun is 17". Revealing military secrets is ok.
They'll only shoot your family and burn down your house if the barrel on your shotgun is 17". Revealing military secrets is ok.
Old Gaffer
New member
From Article lll, Section. 3. of the U.S. Constitution
"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., 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."
The key phrases here (I think) are in adhering to their Enemies and overt.
Publishing a classified document is not in and of itself adhering to an Enemy - in fact, absent a specific set of circumstances, it could be quite the opposite.
And given the preceding to be true, then it would not be an overt act of giving an Enemy aid and comfort.
FYI, I've worked in a classified environment for 20+ years, 14 of them directly in intelligence, and I see a lot of stuff that's classified for no other reason than to keep it out of the public eye - and THAT'S not a good enough reason.
And BTW, I think the government does itself and the public a great disservice by over-classifying stuff, but that's not enough reason for me do disclose classified information.
All the best,
Rob
"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., 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."
The key phrases here (I think) are in adhering to their Enemies and overt.
Publishing a classified document is not in and of itself adhering to an Enemy - in fact, absent a specific set of circumstances, it could be quite the opposite.
And given the preceding to be true, then it would not be an overt act of giving an Enemy aid and comfort.
FYI, I've worked in a classified environment for 20+ years, 14 of them directly in intelligence, and I see a lot of stuff that's classified for no other reason than to keep it out of the public eye - and THAT'S not a good enough reason.
And BTW, I think the government does itself and the public a great disservice by over-classifying stuff, but that's not enough reason for me do disclose classified information.
All the best,
Rob
Transparency in government is necessary for a free society. Operational security is another matter altogether. Honestly though, any piece of information that a news agency is legally able to aquire is freegame. I also agree with the above poster; crap gets classified when it doesn't need to be.
Daves-got-guns
New member
old gaffer, any ufo secrets? sorry i had to ask. Also i do think that the printing of classified data, plus good guys dieing over it, should be treason.
The key really is "overt" acts. When all the newspaper is doing is publishing facts, and the authorities cannot prove where or how those facts were obtained, that's not really "overt." You get into 1st Amendment issues when you prosecute people for printing facts.
Now, if it could be proven that a specific reporter, say, broke into a government building to steal classified information? Yeah... I think that might get closer to "treason." But, how do you prove it with the high judicial standard necessary for a finding of "treason"???
Now, if it could be proven that a specific reporter, say, broke into a government building to steal classified information? Yeah... I think that might get closer to "treason." But, how do you prove it with the high judicial standard necessary for a finding of "treason"???
Old Gaffer
New member
Daves-got-guns;
I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of UFOs, documents pertaining to UFOs, or television/movie/any other media shows pertaining to the existence of UFOs or media.
I can not even confirm or deny the existence of Scully, Mulder, Robby-the-Robot, the Thing (from outer space), the Blob, Invaders from Mars, or Fire Maidens from Venus.
All the best,
Rob
I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of UFOs, documents pertaining to UFOs, or television/movie/any other media shows pertaining to the existence of UFOs or media.
I can not even confirm or deny the existence of Scully, Mulder, Robby-the-Robot, the Thing (from outer space), the Blob, Invaders from Mars, or Fire Maidens from Venus.
All the best,
Rob