In fact, in the 2007 Armed Forces Journal article that made him famous, Yingling rightly stated that the use of the military instrument “is ultimately an instrument of policy and its behavior is the responsibility of policymakers.” Furthermore, he notes that it is “by nature a value judgment in which the statesman must decide which interests and beliefs are worth killing and for which it is worth dying.” Above all, he points out: “The army is no better qualified than the ordinary citizen to make such judgments. It must therefore be limited to its field of expertise: the estimation of strategic probabilities. Apart from another literal civil war, the concept of the internal enemy is not only useless, but also dangerous. Even on a small scale after Hoyle`s betrayal, this is simply a criminal act for which citizens are entitled to due process and other protections under our Constitution. Without a declaration of war, calling a national group an “enemy” not subject to these rights would be an unconstitutional law to be obtained. What is an internal enemy? Nagl and Yingling begin their plea by referring to the oath taken by all officers to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies at home and abroad.” When Congress added this phrase to the oath of office in 1861, it was responding to an ongoing Southern rebellion. The words “enemy ally,” as they are used here, are considered significant: but none of these actions constitute a war against the United States, as this crime requires the use of force to overthrow the government. In none of these scenarios is there such power or intent. Actions do not help the enemy either. Leaking information in newspapers is of no help to the “enemies.” This newspaper and others, whatever Trump may think of them, are not enemies of the United States.
As with aid to Russia, such leaks could violate other provisions of federal law, but they do not constitute treason. 1487 325 U.S. at 34-35. Earlier, Judge Jackson had stated that this phase of betrayal consisted of two elements: “Clinging to the enemy; and to give him help and comfort. A citizen, it was said, could take measures “that help and comfort the enemy. but if there is no adherence to the enemy here, if there is no intention to betray, there is no betrayal. Id. at 29. Jackson J. wrongly stated that the requirement of two witnesses to the same open act was an original invention of the 1787 Convention. In fact, it comes from the British Treason Trials Act of 1695.7 Wm.
III, c.3. The court ruled that the conversations and events well before the indictment constituted admissible evidence on the issue of the accused`s intent. And more importantly, it concluded that the constitutional requirement of two witnesses to the same open act or confession in open court does not serve to exclude confessions or extrajudicial confessions if a legal basis for conviction was created by the testimony of two witnesses, whose confessions or confessions are only confirmations. This relaxation of restrictions on the definition of treason was met with obvious satisfaction from Douglas J.A., who saw Haupt as a confirmation of his position in Cramer. His concurring opinion contains what can be called a reformulation of the law of treason, and deserves to be quoted at length: Who decides who or what constitutes an internal enemy? So who are the current enemies of the United States? North Korea is a possible enemy, because the Korean War was never officially over. Some non-state actors may also be considered enemies, and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are likely to fit the definition. This chapter, which is referred to in the text, was contained in the original “This Act”, which was the Act of October 6, 1917, c. 106, 40 Stat. 411, known as the Trade with the Enemy Act, also known as the Trade with the Enemy Act, means that it is mainly classified in this chapter. For the full classification of this Act in the Code, see section 4301 of this Title and the tables. One can find well-meaning people who argue that all kinds of forces and a number of their fellow citizens are an internal enemy of the Constitution. For example, an Air Force colonel argued in 2013 that “perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment” within the military are internal enemies because they “revolt against civilian authority by committing criminal acts against other members of our service.” This is by no means the stupidest example that exists.
The Main Case.—The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947 in Principal v. United States.1488 Here it has been established that, although the open acts on which the charge of treason was based, the accused housed and housed his son, who was an enemy spy and saboteur, in his home, to help him buy a car and find employment in a weapons factory – all the actions that a father would of course perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treacherous goal of giving help and comfort to the enemy. Speaking on behalf of the court, Judge Jackson said: “Whether the young leader`s mission is benign or treacherous, known or unknown to the accused, these acts have been a help and comfort to him. In the light of this mission and its instructions, they were more than casually useful; They were step-by-step tools essential to his conception of betrayal. When evidence is added that the accused was aware of his son`s instructions, preparation and plans, the purpose of aiding and comforting the enemy becomes clear. 1489 But the enemies are defined very precisely by the American law on treason. An enemy is a nation or organization with which the United States is engaged in a declared or open war. Nations with which we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a charge of high treason calling Russia an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are often at odds with those of the United States, but for the purposes of the law of treason, it is no different from Canada, France or even the American Red Cross. The details of russia`s alleged ties to Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to the high treason law. The longer answer is more complicated.
Apart from the oath of office, the notion of “internal enemy” does not appear in federal law. The prohibition of treason in Article III, Section 3, dates back long before Congress added the phrase to the oath. But given that the “enemy within” clause was added in response to actual acts of treason – the literal war against the United States by a secessionist faction – this is the most obvious answer. “The Cramer case departed from these rules when it stated that `the principle of two witnesses is to prohibit the attribution of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness`. 325 U. p. 35. This decision is more consistent with the constitutional definition of treason if it abandons this test and affirms that an act that is prima facie completely innocent does not need two witnesses to turn it into an incriminating act. 1490 The words “the beginning of war,” as used here, are considered midnight, which ends on the day Congress has declared or will declare war or the existence of a state of war. President Trump promised to do things differently, but the resignation of a national security adviser under a cloud of suspected treason was new, even by Trump`s standards.
The political landscape (and social media) is now littered with accusations of treason, not only against Trump officials, but also against all sorts of other actors – Hillary Clinton, Mitch McConnell, even the state of California.