Should It Be Considered Treason To Steal From Your Own Government During War?

Question

A billion and counting. That's how much Halliburton and it's subsidiaries are being charged with stealing, misusing and abusing so far in Iraq.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_go_ot/iraq_contracts_1


These conclusions are based in 13 different oversight hearings conducted by both the House and the Senate.

So, is it a form of treason to steal from your own government in a war zone during a time of war? Soldiers have been shot for doing just this? Why not some non-soldiers?

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, chairman of the Policy Committee, said that in 13 oversight hearings on the war in Iraq the committee found more than $1 billion in waste, fraud, abuse and what it called "shoddy work" by contractors.

"I'm convinced that this is the biggest waste, fraud and abuse in the history of this country," Dorgan said.

(My friend, a reporter reports what other say and discover and do. The truth is the truth whether it comes from the mouth of a Fox or CNN News Source. If it's the truth it's still the truth.)

Answer 1

Where provisions of theft under the military court applies within the military, it does not cover theft by civilians. Historical context of civilian culpability within a military context is a grey area and often shrouded in violence. (Firing of whole cities.)

If for any other purpose, this is to attenuate further violence towards civilians and reduce the possibility of the military taking matters into their own hands, as is often the case with frustrated commanders in the past.

Should legislature be enacted, U.N. mandate or War Crimes Tribune in the Hague, should bear administration rather than sole implementation in the host country. (Given the nature of MNCs.)

Theft does not otherwise culminate in Treason. Provisions under section 3(1) below, prescribe that Overt aid must be demonstrated and/or supported by Two witnesses.

Due diligence, Caveat Emptor (Latin "Let the Buyer Beware"), should be no different for the Federal government to assess their suppliers, as would any other corporation.

Whilst the goods and services remain in the hands of the civilian contractor, legal substance is conferred only upon delivery of resources to the buyer(military), who then assumes all responsibility and obligations in respect of the commercial trade.

In reiteration, short of martial law or the equivalent, it is too subjective and possibly whimsical, to show detrimental and deprival of resources, over due negligence of both contracting party (military) and contractor.(Halliburton)

Kellogg, Brown & Root, in effect, abused Federal conferred Privilege. Obfuscation was made possible through lack of transparency, reinforced under the guise of risk that proprietary data could be divulged to its competitors.

A possible solution, would be to enable audit of the contractor by the contracting party, doing away with federal regulations to protect contractor performance, just as were any other listed company on NYSE required to adhere to regulations. Performance audits can be performed without inference to proprietary data.

Treasonable acts against Country could otherwise be caught under the definitions below.
_________

Section 3(1) Treason: Levying of War.
Etymology: 13C: (French) traison, Latin tradition a handing over; tradere, to hand over.
Qualifying criteria: Open action and Assemblage of men with intent.
- Conspire to levy war, requires “Open action by the Assemblage of men…the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war.”
- Actual levy of war, requires ''a body of men be actually assembled for the Purpose of Effecting by Force…however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy.''
Cramer.
An Overt act, Openly manifested, supported by proper evidence, demonstrated treasonable intention was not present.
Held: Aid and Comfort to the Enemy was deemed provided by Cramer, under “two-witness principle'' to substantiate circumstantial evidence.
Burr.
Held: There was no Advising or Procuring a levying of war as the testimony of two witnesses to his having procured the assemblage was lacking.
Haupt.
Held: Conversation and occurrences were admissible evidence. Constitutional requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act does not exclude Confessions or admissions made out of court, where admissions are merely corroborative.

Espionage: Etymology- (French) espion “spy”.
Definition: Practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about plans and activities of a foreign government. The crime of spying on the Federal Government and/or transferring State secrets on behalf of a foreign country or power.

Sedition
Definition: The support of an enemy of the nation during war. (Speeches, publications, and organization). Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights, sedition charges are rare, because Treason and espionage charges can be made for Overt acts against national security.

Answer 2

You've referenced an article written by Anne Plummer Flaherty. She's a staunch liberal and certainly not "unbiased". Try referencing an article a bit more credible.

Answer 3

Treason is a named crime for names offenses. This is no more treason than protesting the war.


(selling war plans to the enemy is treason for example)

Answer 4

well Prescott bush was trading with the Nazis during WW2.pROVABLE FROM ARCHIVE MATERIAL.Not much happenned to him so I dont hold out any hope for a different course this time

Answer 5

Unfortunately, profiteering is as old as time. Nothing will be done in this case since their influence is considerable.

Answer 6

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Demorats, again, yet, still.