Dante put them at the bottom

The lowest rung of the Inferno, that is, where one encounters Cocytus, the lake of ice. There the bound, three-headed Satan gnaws on Brutus, Cassius, and Judas. I'm talking about traitors: those who betray the trust put in them.

Thursday constitution blogging is a day late this week. My apologies.

Article III.

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.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

--United States Constitution

U. S. Code § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

--United States Code


Back in October of 2005, when we thought it was Karl Rove (and not the OVP) at the center of leaking Valerie Wilson's identity, John Aravosis wrote of "the normalization of treason."

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot.

We're at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war?

Remember, Mrs. Wilson was working to track development of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq and Iran. With her identity compromised, the entire operation and the network of anyone associate with it was at risk and no longer of any value to the United States.

In doing some reading on the understanding of treason in American jurisprudence I have learned that it is very difficult to prove, which is why it is often preferable to rely on the Espionage Act of 1917 in prosecuting those who betray the nation. There is no question that secret information was divulged in this whole affair.

While proving an act (not an attempt but an act) that confers tangible benefit to the enemy is a very high bar, there is some flexibility in the issue of the two witnesses.

However, the decisions defined with some flexibility favorable to the prosecution the boundaries of the act to which two witnesses must testify. Their testimony need not be identical or precise as to all aspects of the cited behavior, nor need it minutely cover every element into which an episode of behavior might be analyzed. The evidence was sufficient if it joined in identifying what reasonable jurors could regard as a connected, patterned transaction.

[Emphasis mine]

Well, these are just some musings. I doubt that one could successfully convict Richard Bruce Cheney of treason, though I believe he is guilty of it. That's my opinion, anyway.

--the BB