I was looking up Groom Lake (aka Area 51). It started in the mid 50s as a test area for the then under development U-2. Want to know who was Project Manager? Richard M. Bissell, Jr. I know it's probably not our Richard Bissell, but I was struck by the name.
Actually U2 were formed in 1976
ETA
Their 30 year anniversary celebration in NYC was hosted by Barry Bissell
Actually U2 were formed in 1976
Even with over 20 years of development from the mid 50s to when they went public 1976, they went public well before their development was properly finished.
Even with over 20 years of development from the mid 50s to when they went public 1976, they went public well before their development was properly finished.
Bono wasn't born until 1960, The Edge in 61, so in the mid 50's they were not 'in development'.
I do agree that they were 'not properly finished' when they first went public in '76.
Bono wasn't born until 1960, The Edge in 61, so in the mid 50's they were not 'in development'.
True for the current members of U2, but...
Richard G. "Dik" (also "Dick") Evans (born 1957) is an English-born Irish musician best known as a founder of the band Virgin Prunes and an early member of U2. Dik and his brother, David "The Edge" Evans, U2's guitarist, were among the group's co-founders.
I found only a birth year for Dik Evans (1957) so he may been 'in development' in 1956, which for me is 'mid 50's'.
HM.
You do know that the history of that place goes back to WW2? While I'm at it, it wasn't officially recognized until relatively recently.
The SR-71/A-12 and the U-2 were developed there. Both of which are suspected to have been developed far earlier than 'official' accounts.
Nothing about that place is as it's officially announced by the government. Not even Janet Airlines.
If you haven't guessed, the U2 joyR is referring to tongue in check is the band, not the plane.
For those of you who like U2, thees is a very good documentary called "It Might Get Loud", featuring The Edge, Jack White, and Jimmy Page. I'm more into 50s and 60s Rock, but found it very interesting. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might watch it again.
If you haven't guessed, the U2 joyR is referring to tongue in check is the band, not the plane.
What's interesting is the number of people who would have heard of the band and not the plane, and the number who would have heard of the plane and not the band. Then you've got those who wouldn't know about either until they read this.
You'll appreciate this, Ernest, with your military connections. Several years before my father-in-law passed away, there was a bit of a family discussion because my brother-in-law was being deployed to Afghanistan. FIL said that he remembered that part of the world, and my wife said, but Dad, we were in Turkey then. He said, well, yeah, but if you remember, there were times I wasn't home for a few weeks at a time. Wife asked him what he was doing, then, and he said he couldn't say, because it was classified. I asked if he'd been at Bagram, and he said he could say yes. Then I said, oh, you were pulling security for the U-2. He looked at me and said, I can't say, it's still classified. I said, is there anyone in the family who hasn't had a top secret plus security clearance at one point or another? And it's not like it's not been made public that we were flying the U-2 out of that part of the world. He never would say for sure.
he said he couldn't say, because it was classified.
Yeah, it gets like that. According to what my father told us, as set out in his book 'No Names - No Pack Drill' which is on Sol he served in the Australian General Transport Corps during WW2. However, nothing in what he told us or in the copy of his military record we got from the DoD mentioned where or how he got Dengue Fever or why he knew about how Special Service in the islands work or why there's a long multi-month gap in his military record. Maybe we'll find out one day when various things reach the end of the Secret Classification life span.
Maybe we'll find out one day when various things reach the end of the Secret Classification life span.
If it is anything like my experience, it won't happen. There are probably many things that the Australian Army classified in that part of the world when your dad was there. You would have to know specifically what he did to find the declassification statement that addresses what he did. Catch 22. :(
I enlisted in USAF in Feb 1965. I was selected for an organization that supported a Top Secret mission. I served in that organization for almost 7 years. Since my discharge in Dec 71, I've heard nothing from that organization.
I am still in contact with a few of the people I served with at various overseas sites. My initial contact with them was more than 20 years ago. At that time, I learned that my organization's mission had been downgraded to Secret and later totally declassified. When I was debriefed, I was told I could never talk about what I did.
So now the government has a website that describes what I did in detail. However, based on my debriefing, I am still not allowed to discuss what I did because I haven't been rebriefed as to what I can and cannot say about the organization. So I just don't talk about it.
So now the government has a website that describes what I did in detail. However, based on my debriefing, I am still not allowed to discuss what I did because I haven't been rebriefed as to what I can and cannot say about the organization. So I just don't talk about it.
And that is what makes it sound believable. There are many people professing to have been in on various top secret projects spouting off about them. Those people I summarily dismiss as a result. Especially since they are still roaming around running their mouths.
Those people I summarily dismiss as a result.
I understand what you mean. I place people who talk about what they did in regard to classified work into one of 3 categories:
1. People who brag because they know others can't prove they are lying.
2. People who know what they can and can't say, and probably stay within the limits of what they are allowed to say. Of course we don't know what those limits are.
3. People who brag about being involved in things that they should not be talking about.
1/4 of my career was spent working with/on a variety of secret or higher projects. There is no way I'm risking Leavenworth or worse by bragging/talking out of school.
At that time, I learned that my organization's mission had been downgraded to Secret and later totally declassified. When I was debriefed, I was told I could never talk about what I did.
So now the government has a website that describes what I did in detail. However, based on my debriefing, I am still not allowed to discuss what I did because I haven't been rebriefed as to what I can and cannot say about the organization.
Think about it from their point of view:
They will never rebrief you and all the other old farts, because doing so would be an immense burocratic task. Alone to find all those people they would need the help of other agencies and organisations. Then the task of rebriefing when found. They have better things to do than waste money and manpower to accommodate those 'old farts' that they can blab and brag about these old missions.
They may think: "The government has it on a website, why should we individually rebrief the participants? Waste of time and money!"
HM.
That occurred to me a long time ago.
It is just frustrating to not be able to discuss your past work with family.
So now the government has a website that describes what I did in detail. However, based on my debriefing, I am still not allowed to discuss what I did because I haven't been rebriefed as to what I can and cannot say about the organization.
Obviously 'government' isn't known for being rational, however it would be interesting see 'them' try to prosecute anyone involved when 'they' have made information available to the general public.
Unless of course they can justify someone in a public place reading their website aloud so others can hear...
Then again, maybe they just might act, whilst adding the 'national security' blanket so as not to appear idiots.
As assanign as it sounds, just because a portion has become public, the government can still hold the participants to their clearance requirements. The actual secret may be out, but how and why it first came about, including recruiting of personnel, can still be considered a state secret.
ETA; For the spelling nazi, asinine is deliberately misspelled.
The actual secret may be out, but how and why it first came about, including recruiting of personnel, can still be considered a state secret.
Granted. But you are including additional information, whereas I was including only information made public.
Granted. But you are including additional information, whereas I was including only information made public.
Something may be public, but it never existed in a vacuum. There will always be ancillary elements behind the scene.
Something may be public, but it never existed in a vacuum. There will always be ancillary elements behind the scene.
Obviously.
But as I stated, I was including ONLY information made public.
Your original statement;
Obviously 'government' isn't known for being rational, however it would be interesting see 'them' try to prosecute anyone involved when 'they' have made information available to the general public.
Stated in context to REP's statement here;
So now the government has a website that describes what I did in detail. However, based on my debriefing, I am still not allowed to discuss what I did because I haven't been rebriefed as to what I can and cannot say about the organization.
And finally your clarification statement;
Granted. But you are including additional information, whereas I was including only information made public.
You've missed the point. The government doesn't care about the information already made public. They can and have prosecuted people for speaking out of school. In most cases, that's made crystal clear at brief/read in.
What's released by the government to public is never all there is, thus the vacuum comment. What is released has been picked over for any loose threads that can tie it into something else, with the assumption that the personnel in question are going to keep their mouths shut.
It doesn't matter if .gov makes the release on a marquee sign hanging off of a blimp over the super bowl. Until specifically released either by timeout, court order, or written order, the person in question is in jeopardy if they talk period. The terms of the clearance and or brief are a separate but inextricably tied entity.
The government doesn't care about the information already made public.
Presumably because otherwise, barring a cock-up, they'd not have made it public.
What is released has been picked over for any loose threads that can tie it into something else
Again, so they are happy with the public knowing that which they released.
And as I stated, I was including ONLY information made public.
I was including ONLY information made public.
If anyone has been involved in a classified activity they can be charged with breaking their oath if they talk about it, no matter what has been made public by who, unless the entire file on the activity has been declassified and that fact made public. Even if the government has details of an activity on a website or publish it in a book it's very possible only part of the project was declassified to be published. In such cases the best thing anyone can do is to point people at the public available information and say nothing else - not even talk about what's been made public.
The normal process for declassification of activities is for some parts to be declassified, but not all at once. At one point I was employed by the Aust DoD in a section where we dealt with a lot of classified technical files. One of my jobs each year was to go through the old project files and work out what could and couldn't be declassified and sent off to the publicly available archives that year. As an example, say file 1968/004378 was for a project which ended in 1975 I'd look at it in 1995 and go through it in detail while cross checking with other records. Most of it would be cleared for declassification due but some of the technical gear might still be in use. Thus I'd open a new file as 1968/004378-SC and remove the still classified pages from the first file to the second file. The removed pages would be replaced with a note saying "Folios 34 to 56 removed to 1968/004378-SC due to material requiring longer period of security classification" and on the new file I'd have a contents list stating the pages moved and where from. Once the exercise was finished the old file would be officially declassified and sent ot archive with the much slimmer new file put back into our files and the record cards notated.
A typical reason for the above would be a project involving a combat vehicle where the vehicle has been long replaced but some of the weaponry or electronics gear is still classified because it's still in use. When the vehicle was decommissioned such gear would be removed before the vehicle is disposed of so the parts of the vehicle cleared for disposal sale become declassified while the removed parts stay classified. The same time of process can be applied to all sorts of classified activities, so it's better not to speak of what activities you have details off at all, regardless of what happens.
An example of what I mean about not talking of classified activities is I was involved in a number of such activities, but I never mention them to anyone, and when I speak of classified activities like Project Echelon they're activities I never worked on and my knowledge comes from public sources, so I'm not breaking any secrecy oaths by talking about them.
Also, if the activity has been fully declassified that information should be publicly available somewhere, but it's hardly worth trying to find it for most people.
In such cases the best thing anyone can do is to point people at the public available information and say nothing else - not even talk about what's been made public.
The absurdity of that farcical situation is what I pointed out way back.
Let us say you were involved in "Project Laz" many years ago. ?Recently the government uploaded to .gov website details of "Project Laz". So, if I was in an internet cafe, reading their website out loud, all is well, but if you were to read that site out loud, you would technically be breaking your oath.
As I first said, "it would be interesting to see 'them' try to prosecute anyone involved when 'they' have made information available to the general public.
Unless of course they can justify someone in a public place reading their website aloud so others can hear...
Then again, maybe they just might act, whilst adding the 'national security' blanket so as not to appear idiots."
Then again, maybe they just might act, whilst adding the 'national security' blanket so as not to appear idiots.
I take it you've never had a top secret security clearance, or you would know the answer to that one.
One of the guys I was in college with was an ex Navy nuke. He was a little older than most of us, and mentioned that in his training he'd been in Idaho where we had a major nuclear reactor accident. Point being, at that time, the SL-1 reactor accident had only just been declassified a few months earlier and it wasn't very public knowledge. It was common knowledge among those in the branch, but not specifically covered by their security briefings so they could talk about it. He could NOT talk about the control room layouts on the boats, or his duties therein.
Funny thing - he went with me to meet one of my professors, who was a retired Navy Captain. Turned out they were both on the same boat at the same time, and had some interesting stories - that would cut off suddenly. "Hey, remember when Joe ...?" "Yeah, he made it. What about Pete ...?" "He was a good man." "Um, what are you guys talking about?" "Navy stuff, it's all good."
I was including ONLY information made public.
The above is the problem.
When handling classified information you have been given access to, you have to protect ALL of the information. Remus2 and I were addressing people revealing the portion of information that the government decided should remain classified.
You chose to address just that portion of information the government declassified and released to the public. Your comments aren't appropriate because we were talking about people revealing the remainder of the information that is still classified.
You chose to address just that portion of information the government declassified and released to the public. Your comments aren't appropriate because we were talking about people revealing the remainder of the information that is still classified.
Ok, so you did understand that I was addressing ONLY information the government made public. I was beginning to wonder.
My comments aren't appropriate because of what you were talking about? So this is a private conversation between you two?
So this is a private conversation between you two?
No, but when you comment on our conversation without clarifying that you intend your comments to apply to just the information released by the government, there is a high probability of misunderstanding.
Obviously 'government' isn't known for being rational, however it would be interesting see 'them' try to prosecute anyone involved when 'they' have made information available to the general public.
To me the above means that since the government made information public, then the government does not have the right to prosecute people who reveal additional information. Keep in mind the government wouldn't attempt to prosecute people for talking about the information the government made available. They would only prosecute if you revealed information that is still classified and not disclosed by the government.
In a previous post you said;
You chose to address just that portion of information the government declassified and released to the public.
Now you say;
No, but when you comment on our conversation without clarifying that you intend your comments to apply to just the information released by the government, there is a high probability of misunderstanding.
Any chance you could decide which is true?
Any chance you could decide which is true?
Both!
I see no difference between:
that portion of information the government declassified and released to the public
and
you intend your comments to apply to just the information released by the government
The rest of the wording addresses posts that I responded to at the time, which were slightly different topics.
When handling classified information you have been given access to, you have to protect ALL of the information.
To hell with protecting the information. I am going to protect myself and my family by not mentioning ANY classified content that I may or may not have seen, done, or heard. There will always be folks willing to put a hurt on others to gain that intel and old does not necessarily mean obsolete. Revenge also factors in on past missions etc. I just Sgt. Schultz it all.
It is not a question of whether or not I am paranoid. It is a question of whether or not I am paranoid enough.
As assanign as it sounds, just because a portion has become public, the government can still hold the participants to their clearance requirements. The actual secret may be out, but how and why it first came about, including recruiting of personnel, can still be considered a state secret.
This is true. The existence of Project Echelon was made public by an investigative reporter back in the 1960s. Since then more bits and pieces have been made available about what the project did in further reveals during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. However, a lot of the detailed nuts and bolts were still secret. Thus, Snowden committed treason when he broke his oath of secrecy by revealing how Project Echelon was no evaluating its information alongside that of the information provided to the NSA by the internal US investigative authorities under the requirements of the Patriot Act. The fact the information was being sorted by a tweaked version of a commercial data analyzing tool called Prism had not been known until then, yet the fact the NSA collected all radio and electronic communications that crossed the USA borders had been known since the 1960s and the fact the data collected by internal law enforcement agencies had been known since the Patriot Act had been made law was passed to the NSA how it was managed was not in the public domain. Thus it's very likely there's information that those involved in a secret operation would have information that's still classified.
....................
In regards to my father's war record the fact he may have been involved in a classified unit or operation would have been noted on his file without the fine details, but when a copy of that record is made public while the event is still classified would have that detail redacted or removed from the record when an approved officer was checking it before sending us a copy. However, after the event or unit is declassified the check would show that and they'd not redact it or remove. The actual event or unit would show and we'd then have to look into the event or unit to know exactly what they did. Well, that's how it works here.
Thus, Snowden committed treason when he broke his oath of secrecy by revealing how Project Echelon
Treason? Really? I'm quite sure Snowden broke the law, but doesn't the charge of treason require that the offender be in cahoots with a declared enemy?
I'm quite sure Snowden broke the law, but doesn't the charge of treason require that the offender be in cahoots with a declared enemy?
No, it doesn't
US Constitution Article III section 3
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
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.
Note that the shall consist of is a comma separated list describing three distinct types of acts
1. levying war against them
2. adhering to their enemies
3. giving them aid and comfort
2 and 3 require the offender to be in cahoots with a declared enemy, however 1 does not.
#1 doesn't even have to involve a foreign government at all. A one man armed rebellion against the US government would qualify as "levying war against" the United States.
What could bite Snowden in this definition is #1, because espionage is almost universally considered an act of war. Even though the acts of espionage committed by Snowden were self motivated and not at the behest of any foreign government whether a declared enemy or not, those acts of espionage still technically qualify as "levying war against" the United States.
On the other hand, in Snowden's favor, in the entire history of the US, only a handful of people have been officially charged with treason, and fewer have been convicted.
Treason is the hardest crime to prove in the entire US criminal code. Unfortunately, AIII S3 was written before the era of modern forensics, and a conviction for treason requires either two eyewitnesses to the same overt act of treason or confession in open court.
So, while what Snowden did, very likely qualifies as treason, convicting him of treason would be close to impossible.
Espionage is generally done in secret, so coming up with two eye witnesses of the same act would be exceedingly unlikely, so the only thing Snowden would need to do to avoid a conviction for treason would be to keep his mouth shut in court.
The only thing I would point out is the wording does not require a declaration of war by the US against an enemy. Although in practice, treason charges are usually only brought against people aiding a declared enemy.
That is why things were so dicey for Jane Fonda even though the US had not declared war against North Vietnam. Personally, I believe the only thing that kept her from facing a charge of treason was her and her families political connections.
The only thing I would point out is the wording does not require a declaration of war by the US against an enemy.
Treason by "levying war against them" doesn't require any "enemy" other than the traitor.
Treason by "levying war against them" doesn't require any "enemy" other than the traitor.
I rather doubt that a single person, acting alone, could reasonably be considered to be "levying war".
Levying is in that sense the act of recruiting (usually militia) and refers to people, persons, etc, not a single individual's action.
Whilst a single individual could be considered as acting in defiance of his country's government, to accuse a single individual, acting alone, to be treasonous would be to make a laughing stock of the country, any country, but especially the self-proclaimed 'most powerful nation on earth'.
Especially when a great deal of that exposed was embarrassing rather than truly dangerous.
I rather doubt that a single person, acting alone, could reasonably be considered to be "levying war".
You may be right, but there is historical precedent for armed rebellion by groups too small to actually be a real threat to the government being considered treason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion#Rebellion
So it's far from certain that a lone actor could not be considered "levying war".
In any case, even if a lone actor could be considered "levying war", Snowden won't be charged with treason, because a conviction would be exceedingly unlikely absent confession in open court.
Although in practice, treason charges are usually only brought against people aiding a declared enemy.
In practice, the US government almost never brings an official charge of treason. Actual statutory crimes to have been created to cover all the underlying potential elements of treason to reduce the burden of proof required because getting a conviction on treason is nearly impossible.
That is why things were so dicey for Jane Fonda even though the US had not declared war against North Vietnam.
On the issue of an official treason charge, it was never dicey, it wasn't going to happen. Where were they going to get two eye witnesses from? The only chance for an actual treason conviction would be if they could have tricked her into confessing in open court (a written confession obtained by the FBI or one of the intelligence services wouldn't be sufficient for a treason conviction).
Where were they going to get two eye witnesses from?
At the time there were no witnesses available. After the POWs were released, witnesses were available but still no charges. Politicians don't permit actions that will harm them. The family owned the politicians who controlled others.
After the POWs were released, witnesses were available but still no charges.
That might have worked for Chelsea Manning, but not Snowden.
What POWs would have witnessed Snowden's acts of espionage committed on US soil?
You're right, I forgot that. The question would then be, would she have done anything clearly treason withing site of US soldiers being held by North Vietnam as POWs.
would she have done anything clearly treason withing site of US soldiers being held by North Vietnam as POWs.
She met with 7 U.S. soldiers who were being held as POW's.
She posed for pictures at an anti-aircraft gun just outside of Hanoi, which have been published many times.
She made broadcasts about the damage caused by U.S. planes while denouncing U.S. military policy over broadcasts on Radio Hanoi to serving U.S. military members.
While the first one - simply meeting with U.S. POW's - was simply that, a meeting and nothing actually happened to those men due to that, the third shows activity designed to reduce the combat effectiveness of American soldiers. While this is borderline treason (aid and comfort to an enemy), it does qualify as sedition - attempting to usurp the lawful authority.
the third shows activity designed to reduce the combat effectiveness of American soldiers. While this is borderline treason (aid and comfort to an enemy), it does qualify as sedition - attempting to usurp the lawful authority.
Yes, but:
1. I don't think it's all that borderline. There were treason convictions stemming from WWII for propaganda efforts on behalf of Nazi Germany and Japan
2. The two witness requirement for conviction on a charge of treason would likely require people who witnessed her making the broadcast.
People who merely heard the broadcast wouldn't be sufficient, or if they were, there would be no need for recovered POWs to be those witnesses.
I would be very surprised if any US POWs were present for those broadcasts (or the recording of them if they were prerecorded)
That would depend on what and who you want to believe. With the way rumors and half-truths spread, it is difficult to maintain an open mind and differentiate between factual and non-factual statements.
According to some reports, some of the POWs described her activities when she toured their NV prison camp after their return to the US. Some of what the POWs described was released to the public. I suspect a lot was suppressed at the time to facilitate negotiations for release of other POWs and the recovery of the bodies of US soldiers. Certain POWs have supposedly commented on her activities to friends and the media.
If nothing else, she was told by the US Government to not go to NV and her US passport was canceled. She used her French citizenship to leave the US and travel to NV. In doing so, she placed herself in a position where the NV could use her for propaganda purposes, and she cooperated with them in generating the propaganda. I suspect a lot of that propaganda has been suppressed for a variety of reasons.
You are still kind of missing the point.
My point is not about whether she did or did not commit treason. I think she clearly did. My point is exclusively about the difficulty of meeting the constitutionally mandated level of proof.
Again, here is the relevant wording from the constitution
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.
Now the tricky part is how does the two witnesses part apply in a treason by propaganda for the enemy case.
As I read that, the only overt act would be the making of the propaganda, and to be overt, the alleged traitor would have to be knowingly and willingly participating in the making of the propaganda, not just being duped into it.
So the making of the propaganda is what you need two witnesses for.
Would the US courts agree with my take, I have no idea.
IF they don't, and seeing/hearing the final propaganda is enough, returned POWs wouldn't be needed to meet the two witness requirement.
However look at how the US treated Fonda. They basically let her off the hook. Did they do so because public sentiment was so strongly against the war by the time it ended, or did they think they wouldn't be able to meet the required burden of proof (they thought the courts would agree with my take).
If the courts agree with me, you don't just need two POWs, because both witnesses have to testify to seeing the same overt act, you need two POWs that were both present at the same camp at the time that camp was visited by Fonda while the NVA was filming the visit.
Otherwise, you need two NV officials that were both involved in the making of the same piece of propaganda.
And again, if you can't obtain the required two witnesses, the only way to convict Fonda of treason is for her to confess in open court.
Because of the requirements in the constitution, they can't us any surviving recordings of the propaganda broadcasts as physical evidence as a replacement to human testimony.
Would the US courts agree with my take, I have no idea.
A lot has changed since the Constitution was written. At that time a confession or witnesses to an act were the only valid proof of wrong doing. Since then photography has come into being. I believe that a court would accept film of her committing treasonous acts as proof of wrong doing in lieu of witnesses or a confession.
I believe that a court would accept film of her committing treasonous acts as proof of wrong doing in lieu of witnesses or a confession.
Except that the Constitution lays out the requirement of two witnesses. No court would go against the requirements of treason as proscribed. It would never allow photographs in place of witnesses. Sorry.
I believe that a court would accept film of her committing treasonous acts as proof of wrong doing in lieu of witnesses or a confession.
On a charge of treason, the constitution would have to be amended first.
Even if the trial court could get away with allowing film footage to count as a witness, it's only one witness and the constitutional requirement is two witnesses to the same overt act of treason.
The text of the constitution is in no way ambiguous here. I do no believe that the Circuit Courts or SCOTUS would/could allow such a trial result to stand.
I do no believe that the Circuit Courts or SCOTUS would/could allow such a trial result to stand.
The prosecuting attorney would have to establish film as a record of what happened and by viewing the film the viewer becomes a witness to the events documented in the film.
I don't think it would be that difficult to establish the concept. At the time the Constitution was written, an original document was required in court. Currently, we accept a copy of a document as valid as the original. At the time the Constitution was written, witnesses to an event were required in court because it was the only way to prove what happened. Today, we accept photographs and film/video as proof of what happened.
There have been instances where SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution; the premise of their interpretation is the words used in the Constitution are intended to convey an intent. SCOTUS views the intent of the wording to be what is important, not the specific words used to convey the intent. SCOTUS would be judging what the founders intended by stating 'two witnesses'. I believe they and the lower courts would be open to an argument of the wording to mean 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and a film of a person's actions would be accepted as the equivalent of two witnesses.
minor edits
The prosecuting attorney would have to establish film as a record of what happened and by viewing the film the viewer becomes a witness to the events documented in the film.
It doesn't work that way.
I don't think it would be that difficult to establish the concept. At the time the Constitution was written, an original document was required in court.
The original document requirement was not written into the constitution. It's not a remotely comparable situation.
There have been instances where SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution; the premise of their interpretation is the words used in the Constitution are intended to convey an intent.
Sure, in cases where the wording of the constitution was deemed ambiguous. There is no ambiguity in the requirements for conviction of treason.
It doesn't work that way.
Not true.
Cases are presented to and reviewed by SCOTUS because there are challenges to the intent of what was written in the Constitution. The lawyers have to demonstrate that application of what was written MAY not be valid and/or applicable to today's world. IF in reviewing the cases, the SCOTIS' Justices agree that what was written MAY not be appropriate, the Justices will agree to hear the cases.
You can dismiss what I say about the standards for admissible evidence because those standards weren't written into the Constitution. However, something like an original document was the standard used by the courts in that timeframe. SCOTUS is not bound by the specific wording used in the Constitution as you indicate in your posts. SCOTUS decides the standards by which it will function because the Constitution does not have a section that states the specific detail of how the Supreme Court is to be run. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and if it should decide to do so, it has the power to expand the intent of 'two witnesses' to include other forms of proof. SCOTUS has done so in the past and it will do so in the future; even if you chose to ignore that fact.
two witnesses to the same overt act of treason.
Going back to the Snowden issue, it could be argued that the act itself in his case was covert, not overt, only the results were overt.
Given the constitutional wording, nobody can be charged with treason for a covert act..??
Given the constitutional wording, nobody can be charged with treason for a covert act..??
Exactly so. This is why the US government has only charged one person with treason since the resolution of the last case stemming from WWII. And the recent case, never went to trial because the alleged traitor was indicted in absentia and died before he could be captured.
It's just easier for them to enact normal statues to cover the various things that could be considered treason and not deal with the constitutional requirements for a conviction on a charge of treason.
Don't like it, amend the constitution, rather than trying to convince the courts to ignore constitutional clauses that are clear and unambiguous.
Going back to the Snowden issue
Well, If they did charge him with treason, he could theoretically have an attack of temporary idiocy and confess in open court. But no, baring that, there would be no way to convict him of treason.
That is why things were so dicey for Jane Fonda even though the US had not declared war against North Vietnam.
ADDED LATER: Never mind. Already answered.
If treason does not require a declared enemy, why would not the Nixon Administration have charged Jane Fonda? As I recall it, they would have had public sentiment on their side.
If treason does not require a declared enemy, why would not the Nixon Administration have charged Jane Fonda?
Actually, there was a wide split in opinion, That war was never popular, and public sentiment towards the war was even worse by the time it was over.
However, In my opinion the two witnesses to the same overt act of treason or confession in open court requirement for conviction is what stopped them.
Several people were convicted of similar propaganda efforts on behalf of Nazi Germany and Japan in the years after WWII. However, We won those wars and had occupied half of Germany and All of Japan. The US government would have had access to witnesses who could testify to the making of the propaganda.
On the other hand, in Jane Fonda's case, we lost Vietnam, all the best witnesses (NV officials involved in the making of the Jane Fonda propaganda) were in Vietnam which was under the control of a government hostile to the US.
As to returned POWs, It's not enough to just have two witnesses, you need two witnesses to a singular act of treason. Any documentary evidence to back up that any two POWs were in the same camp at the time of a visit by Fonda was again under the control of a government hostile to the US.
Unless your POWs could testify that they saw each other on the day of visit by Fonda, and in the absence of the documentary evidence described above, any decent defense attorney could raise doubt about whether or not both witnesses were testifying to the same act.
There was very likely little to no chance of the government meeting the requirements for a conviction of treason unless they could get Fonda to confess in open court.
why would not the Nixon Administration have charged Jane Fonda?
The Fonda family had a great deal of political influence. Politicians owed them favors and not prosecuting was probably a very favorable way to repay what they owed.
but doesn't the charge of treason require that the offender be in cahoots with a declared enemy?
No. The wording in the US Constitution includes the following as an act of treason.
in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
Making classified information available to the general public is treason for the person releasing the information knows that it will be available for use by all enemies of the US.
Adhering to does not require personal contact with the enemy. Taking a position in support of the enemy is all it takes.
Making classified information available to the general public is treason for the person releasing the information knows that it will be available for use by all enemies of the US.
Even if no "enemies" of the US got a hold of the information, it would still be treason. Stealing classified information, even if you don't make it available to anyone, is espionage and espionage is an act of war, and therefor qualifies under the first element of treason which you left out, "levying war against them". No outside "enemy" required.
he swore and signed an oath to protect and keep secret nationally classified secret information then broke that oath. Yep, he committed treason as much as anyone else who gave out information classified as secret without the authority or permission to do so.
he gave out information useful to enemies and he publicly admitted doing so as well as publicly talking about it. So plenty of witnesses to his acts.
he swore and signed an oath to protect and keep secret nationally classified secret information then broke that oath.
Not relevant to the issue of treason under US law.
In addition, the Constitution also says, "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."
Anybody have a clue what that means?
https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-03/
The 'Travis Translation' of Article 3, Section 3:
Treason, or betraying the United States, is making war against the United States, or being loyal to an enemy of the United States, or giving that enemy help or comfort. Nobody can be found guilty of treason unless two people describe the same obvious act of treason in open court, or unless the accused person says in open court that she/he did it.
Congress decides how to punish treason. If someone is guilty of treason, their family cannot be punished. The disgrace of the traitor, and any fines they owe, will go with them to their death, but not past that.
Not relevant to the issue of treason under US law.
He made classified information available to the country's enemies - that's treason - very simple. It matters not if he sells it to them or shouts it from the rooftops, he made it available to them.
Love how an Aussie decides what is treason for Americans.
Just following the logic used in regards to past people in the US who were tried for treason by providing classified material to other people who weren't authorized to have it.
That wouldn't be a very large set, possibly even an empty set. In the entire 200+ year history of the US, there have been fewer than 30 trials on official charges of treason, and only around 15 convictions. The two largest groups stem from either the US Civil War or WWII. Most of the rest pre-date the Civil War. The last treason trial conducted in the US was for a man with Dual US/Japanese citizenship who left the US during WWII and managed a POW camp for Japan (convicted in 1952)
Cite a specific case.
Cite a specific case.
Sentenced since WW2 specifically for treason - Martin Monti, Robert Best, Iva D'Aquino, Mildred Gillars, Tomoya Kawakita, Herbert Burgman.
Those charged with treason since WW2 but not brought before the court - Adam Pearlman.
Then you have those who committed acts of treason and were sentenced for sedition or as spies, as that was easier to get a conviction for, since WW2 - Jonathon Pollard, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, John Walker, Stewart Nozette, Andrew Lee, Christopher Boyce, Kimberly Tillman, Clyde Conrad, and about 50 others I'm too lazy to type up.
Spying or committing an act of espionage against you country is a betrayal of your country and an act of treason against your country regardless of how you want to word it.
Sentenced since WW2 specifically for treason - Martin Monti, Robert Best, Iva D'Aquino, Mildred Gillars, Tomoya Kawakita, Herbert Burgman.
Martin Monty and Robert Best while convicted and sentenced after the war, neither of them were charged with treason on the basis of espionage, they were charged with treason for propaganda efforts on behalf of Nazi Germany during WWII.
Iva D'Aquino (AKA Tokyo Rose), again the basis of her treason charges were propaganda on behalf of Japan. She was living in Japan at the time the acts of treason were committed. Again, the trial was post WWII the acts of treason for which she was charged were not. In point of fact, in the immediate aftermath of the war, the US Military and the FBI determined that her broadcasts were innocuous, but the FBI reversed it's position later due to public outcry when she attempted to return to the US in 1949
Mildred Gillars: Basis of treason charges Propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany during WWII.
Tomoya Kawakita: Basis of Treason charges Running a POW camp for the Japanese government during WWII. He moved to Japan before the US was at war with Japan.
Herbert Burgman: Propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany during WWII.
Adam Pearlman: Aiding an enemy of the US, NOT espionage. He was never brought before the court because he was indicted without being in US custody and died before he could be captured.
Then you have those who committed acts of treason and were sentenced for sedition or as spies
If they were never officially charged with treason they don't counter anything I've said on this thread.
Spying or committing an act of espionage against you country is a betrayal of your country and an act of treason against your country regardless of how you want to word it.
You will not be able to find any statement by me on this thread disagreeing with this statement.
However, Treason in US law is the only crime explicitly defined in the US Constitution, and the definition is relatively narrow. Without a conviction for an official charge of treason explicitly on the basis of espionage (none of the cases you mention qualify) we don't/can't have a definitive answer on the issue from the US Courts.
when 'they' have made information available to the general public.
They described the mission in detail. They did not address how that mission was accomplished, or where our duty stations were located.
Ever tried dealing with Microsoft?
Of course not..!!
I may be considered crazy, insane or unbalanced...
But not that stupid. (I use a proper computer)
I've come to the conclusion that without some measure of pertinent background, people will simply not grasp the concept.
I was in the Army Security Agency with a top secret crypto clearance back in the Viet Nam days and I still won't talk about what I did other than the general type of information that was never secret. The IC can make a person's life miserable for even the tiniest alleged infraction if someone in the community gets a wild hair up his ass. It's just plain stupid to take that risk to score a conversation point.
It's just plain stupid to take that risk to score a conversation point.
That should cover it, sadly for too many, it didn't.
Want to talk about thread creep? All this from a simple statement half made in jest about Broom Lake and Richard Bissell.
It should be noted, that the US founders who wrote the constitution wanted the definition of treason to be narrow and convictions on charges of treason to be very difficult, almost impossible to obtain.
Don't forget, they themselves had only a few years before committed acts that could be considered treason against the British Crown.
Don't forget, they themselves had only a few years before committed acts that could be considered treason against the British Crown.
Were considered, not could be ...
Depending upon who was looking at it. From the American perspective, they were heroic patriots who risked their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for freedom. From the British perspective, they were treasonous colonials that, if they had won, would have been hanged.
Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
they were treasonous colonials that, if they had won, would have been hanged.
Many of those treasonous colonials and their families were taken prisoner by the British Army during the war and executed.
There is another quote about the winners of a war writing the history of the war that is also pertinent; although that quote was based on the winner destroying its opposition. The American colonists won the American Revolution, so they got to write the history of that war. However, in winning, the British Empire was not destroyed. So they also wrote their history of the war. That means the world gets to chose which history they wish to believe.
Arguing what constitutes treason is pointless. The arm chair lawyers and real lawyers can go round and round over it, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter in the long term.
From Oxford:
adjective
1Involving or guilty of the crime of betraying one's country.
'a treasonous act against the State'
'he was accused of a treasonous conspiracy to topple the government'
'they're branding dissenters as unpatriotic and treasonous'
What constitutes 'The State/Government' is slippery at best. Without that written indelibly in stone, it's impossible to pin down what treason is.