June 29, 2006
Treason
Ann Coulter writes about the NY Times' recent behaviour and famous traitors like Tokyo Rose & Axis Sally.
- There was no evidence that in any of these cases the treasonable broadcasts ever put a single American life in danger. The law on treason doesn't require it.
The federal statute on treason, 18 USC 2381, provides in relevant part: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000."
Thanks to The New York Times, the easiest job in the world right now is: "Head of Counterintelligence — Al-Qaida." You just have to read The New York Times over morning coffee, and you're done by 10 a.m.
The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency — our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals — it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.
As usual, it's good points mixed with Ann Coulter's "wit."
But I'm wondering... according to 18 USC 2381, it presupposes owing allegiance to the United States. What if you're an admitted post-nationalist? Are you exempted?
Current Events Posted by AlexC at June 29, 2006 1:20 AM
I'm not itchin' to jump in and defend the New York Times but the treason here -- and it is clearly treason -- is the leaker.
If I may go all Joe McCarthy for a moment, this person works for the United States Government and was willing to harm the government and citizens. I wish the Times showed better discretion, yes, but the traitor here is the leaker.
Posted by: jk at June 29, 2006 10:29 AMThe leaker definately is a traitor. But that doesn't mean I can't call it the Paper of Treason.
Posted by: AlexC at June 29, 2006 12:30 PM | What do you think? [2]