[ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:37 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
> Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> >… I've yet to see your case for why she is a traitor, and I wonder if
> inspection of said case will have a similar result…
>
> Mishandling classified information is controlled under the body of law
> which deals with treason.
>
Said body of law deals with a bunch of other crimes too.  Doesn't make all
crimes the same.

Treason is defined both in the U.S. Constitution and in the U.S. Code.
Classified information is only mentioned in the latter.

>From U.S. Constitution Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

>From 18 U.S. Code § 2381 (titled "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"

Both of these seem to require an actual enemy to have been intentionally
assisted, or levying war against the US.  Neither one seems to have
happened in this case.


> >…If this is your case, it makes no sense.  Each of those things you
> listed may be a breach of law & security (emphasis: "may"; the FBI's
> determining if they are), but treason requires actively betraying one's
> country…
>
> Ja.  Intentionally mishandling classified information, as in the Sullivan
> case, is intentionally mishandling information, which is actively betraying
> one’s country.
>
To whom?  For that to be active betrayal would require some third party,
opposed to said country, to benefit as planned by the betrayer.

> In the case of classified information, it does not need to be an
> identified enemy of the country, only an unauthorized person.
>

To fit the legal definition of treason, it does need to be an enemy.


> Jeffery Sterling is serving time right now for passing classified info to
> New York Times reporter James Risen.
>

The charge in his case was "violating the Espionage Act", not "treason".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/dab84abc/attachment.html>