2006-09-13 18:48:29 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's the consensus of Y! Answers that all it takes is for someone to admit to be a Liberal or a Democrat.
"We want a one-party Republican State" they say. "Give us George W. Bush as President For Life"!
Abolish taxes! Legalize concealed weapons to keep America free! Hang the traitors! . . . and so on.
2006-09-13 19:02:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
First you have to define what is treason. In the US you are lucky, because it is defined in Art III, Sec 3 of the United States Constitution. That section also sets forth certain requirements for proving treason. After that, it is "proven" like any other offense: through the testimony of witnesses and publication to the finder of fact any physical or documentary evidence. The question then becomes what particular actions of a defendant must be proven thru evidence to constitute treason. Here, each case is different. You might try doing research in Wikipedia or other books under "treason." One of the most interesting and best reported cases is the treason trial of Aaron Burr. The Judge was the the chief justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall, who was sitting as a Circuit Court trial judge. Reading his holding (Burr was acquitted by the way) will illustrate of some of the factors that must be considered in proving a treason charge. And it is interesting history.
2006-09-14 10:26:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where I am, treason is proved by at least two witnesses attesting to the same treasonous act. When do we say that an act is treasonous? If you are a gov't employee who is in custody of a highly classified information, particularly with regard to data on national defense, and you divulge the same to any person who is unauthorized to have access to the same, then you commit treason. Another scenario would be if an unauthorized person enters into a military camp or installation for the purpose of gathering highly classified information regarding the national security and relevant matters, irrespective of whether that person was able to get hold of it or not. I hope i was able to help. God bless.
2006-09-14 02:01:18 · answer #3 · answered by christiana 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the US, treason is very narrowly defined by the Constitution. Treason is the act of "levying war against the US or giving aid and comfort to her enemies". Treason must also be proven by two witnesses (at least) to the same overt act, and the testimony must be in open court.
Historically, prosecutions for treason have been quite rare. Not only is treason extremely difficult to prove, there may or may not be sufficient witnesses to the same overt act. In addition, many of the acts that we consider "treasonous" fall under other statutes, which are not as strictly defined, and thus are far easier to prosecute. Espionage, for example.
2006-09-14 10:19:03 · answer #4 · answered by Phil R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did they intentionally aid, in a material way, a legally declared enemy of the state? Was this aid material in undermining the securtiy of the citizens of the nation? Was this aid covert and subverted the abilitlity of the nation to defend itself?
2006-09-14 02:02:40 · answer #5 · answered by Libertarian56 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, just look at the guy in office right now.
There you go.
2006-09-14 01:52:12 · answer #6 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't you need a ship and white wig for that?
2006-09-14 01:50:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
ask Bush
2006-09-14 01:50:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋