Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Clarification re: Wikileaks/Assange/Manning, etc.

For clarification, the crimes committed by Manning, Wikileaks, and Assange, are "espionage" related, including providing material support to terrorist organizations, and in Wikileaks position, potentially being named as such an organization.

It is NOT treason.

From Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Deluxe edition:

"Treason, n. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which one owes allegiance, either by making war against the state or by materially supporting its enemies."

The proper crimes start with "espionage".

Again, same Black's:

"Espionage - The practice of using spies to collect information about what another government or company is doing or plans to do." Under 18 USCA section 793, et seq., the act of "espionage" against the United States was criminalized and sets forth the punishments for espionage, spying, and related crimes. See 18 USC section 793 here: link

Terrorism, as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 2331:

"(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act;
(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of
holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course
of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States."

See also 18 U.S.C. section 2339A "Providing material support to terrorists" http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2339A

"(a) Offense. - Whoever provides material support or resources or
conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of
material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are
to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of
section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or
(i), 930(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751,
1992, 1993, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, or
2340A of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123(b) of title 49, or any
offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A
and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the
concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation,
or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the
death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of
years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in
any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was
committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by
law.
(b) Definitions. - As used in this section -
(1) the term "material support or resources" means any
property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency
or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial
services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance,
safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications
equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives,
personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself),
and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
(2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed
to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
(3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or
assistance derived from scientific, technical or other
specialized knowledge."

And, 18 U.S.C. section 2339B "Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations" http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2339B

Manning and Assange both could be found guilty of being a "spy" (one who secretly observes and collects secret information or intelligence about what another government or company is doing or plans to do; one who commits espionage), as well as the "providing materials support to terrorists or terrorist organizations". See 18 USC section 2339, et seq, for that here: link

Wikileaks, as an organization, could very easily be designated a "foreign terrorist organization" under 8 U.S.C. section 1189, see here: link

"the organization is in a foreign country...engages in terrorist activities or has the capacity to do so...and such actions are against the United States."

It is NOT "treason". The punishments, however, are the same.

(Sorry, pet peeve rant over...)

Laughing here, about your "pet peeve rant" ... Guess you don't recall saying this just the other day (https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth..._Wikileak_Has_Really_Done_It#Post4642734):



Don't worry though... we all still love ya ... (grin)

No, I was technically incorrect then.

The line for Manning/Assange is thin on each, though different.

For Manning, if the intent was to overthrow or undermine the .gov, then "treason" it would be.

For Assange, since his intent is such, if he were a citizen or resident alien or other such person that would normally have a duty of loyalty, then treason it would be.

Lacking those key elements for each, treason is it not.

no thin line at all ... if Assange is not a citizen of the USA, there is NOTHING he could do that could be treason ... and last I checked, Assange is not, and never has been, a US citizen ...

Exactly. It's a lacking element on both cases that removes it from being technically "treason". When you're down to that being the only thing that keeps a charge from sticking, it's a pretty damned thin line, IMHO. Regardless, it's factually and effectually irrelevant, as the other charges are still there, and the punishments for them are equivalent to those for "treason".

Re Manning but not Assange �


[emphasis mine]

I know what you're saying ... but all I'm saying is that you started a thread about your pet peeve of the misuse of the word "treason", when you yourself misused it just the other day... THAT is funny.

You can walk up to the line all day long, forever ... but if you can't cross it, you can't cross it, period.

Assange has never in his life been able to commit treason against the US ... no way, no how, period, paragraph, end of story.

Espionage? Sure ... Terrorism? You betcha! ... Treason ... Nope, not even possible.

Yeah, been driving me nuts to hear Assange called a traitor or being guilty of treason. Call him a spy, saboteur, supporter of terrorism, etc.. those could all be accurate. But not traitor/treason.

Now I think that moniker probably applies to Manning since he did it with the express purpose of hurting the United States. And he should suffer the full penalty for treason, once the military tribunal finishes their 10 minute trial. The big question is, hanging or firing squad?

It's a crime against the USA, in any event.

The questions are can we take advantage of it in the immediate term, and can we prevent it in the longer term? That's aside from the question of what we do to these creeps.

Ken;

It still requires the predicate intent and allegiance.

I.e., a citizen/resident alien with the intent of overthrowing the .gov commits treason by either making war against the .gov or by materially supporting it's enemies.

Benedict Arnold, a man that owed allegiance to the then-declared-independent States committed treason by his attempt to overthrow that fledgling gov't by making war against them and by materially supporting it's enemies.

Manning, though the allegiance is there, and the material support of enemies is there, lacks the intent to overthrow the .gov.

Assange, though the material support and the intent to overthrow the .gov is there, lacks the requisite duty of allegiance.

Manning lacks the full intent to overthrow the .gov, thus it is not treason.

However, the penalty of espionage, aiding terrorist orgs., etc., that he is very likely guilty of carry the same punishment.

Hang him.

Funny how TPTB didn't get too worked up about him and his organization until he mentioned that he has 5GB of similar material on one of the largest banks in the US. Now they're concerned.

TPTB?

Post the hanging on You tube... would seem somehow fitting...

But let's give him a fair trial on the way to the gallows.

Does he lack the full intent to overthrow the gov't? Doesn't seem like that's an established fact. If one's actions contradict one's words, then a jury will have to decide.

A crime against the USA government.

I'm part of the USA, and it sure ain't a crime against me.

His intent was to get back at the military for DADT.

Intent, is a prerequisite for treason.

Not so for espionage, spying, the terrorist charges, etc.

And, those carry the same penalties.

If only...

Hell, if it were, I'd likely buy him a beer. Or, a wine spritzer, or whatever the little poofter drinks.

Yep.