Should we have up to date treason laws?

Post Reply New Topic

This question applies both to UK an US, as we both have historical treason laws that have in practice been largely been superseded by various laws.

Whilst I agree it needs reform, it occurs to me that some of the modern laws are not fit for purpose, and are sometimes ill fighting. Terrorism laws, workplace violence, domestic terrorist, 'commissioning' etc.

I think 'terrorist' is a word that is quite descriptive, but in legal terms I think it is kind of besides the point. What is the act? Is an act of terrorism or an act again a state and its people? If that person has citizenship or residence.

If it is an act against a state and its people, and they especially have admitted it, or it that information can be proven in a court that the act was intended to be against the sate an it people, why not have a law that fits that?

Maybe treason sounds a bit old hat, but something which covers acts again the state and its people.

Of course it would need parliamentary debate, and legal safeguards. I just think that when these event happen, it iis a bit of a legal mess, it not really that clear, and due process is not really that clear anyway.

While treasonous behavior includes espionage, mutiny and sedition, it seems to be more passive and less violent than any act of outright terrorism.

It's kind of like the difference between a peaceful act of civil disobedience in front of City Hall, and violently storming City Hall to vandalize the premises and defenestrate the City Council.

I don't see peaceful civil disobedience as treason.

That scares me because, in the past, treason included simply not liking one's country, even if one was a peaceful and good citizen. Off with their head!

I'd naturally be scared as I don't particularly like my country... though I'd never even dream of hurting anyone and would rather just exit peacefully.

Is there an act of treason that is not otherwise provided for in criminal law, or that is less severely punished in other criminal law? That question can only be answered by examining the definition of treason applicable to the jurisdiction concerned, and looking for the lacunae in the rest of its criminal law.

In Canada, there are two definitions of treason:

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);
(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or
(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).
(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

Subsection 46(3) creates an important characteristic of treason not shared by other offenses. It applies to Canadian citizens extraterritorially. If I kill a person in the United Kingdom, I can be prosecuted for murder there, but not in Canada. But if I attempt to kill the Queen in the United Kingdom, I can be tried for high treason in Canada for the act.

Similarly, subsection 46(4) elevates conspiracy from a subordinate offence, to the substantive offence. If I conspire with someone to commit a murder, but we don't actually carry it out, then we are only guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, and the penalty is lower. But if I conspire with someone to murder the Queen, then that is sufficient to make out the substantive offence of treason. (Subject, of course to the conspiracy being perfected).

Of course the answer may be entirely different in other jurisdictions, so this is only illustrative.

We have too many laws and our governments don't heed them if it's not convenient anyways. I'm sure there are certain scumbags in government that would want to make it treasonous to question anything about government, they already have millions of Americans penciled in as potential 'domestic terrorists'. We live in a police state.

I really hate the word treason because it attempts to crystallise the concept of 'patriotism' in that to be loyal to one's country you must subscribe to the values championed by its government.

Governments should fear its people, not the other way around. My belief is that in the event that a malignant government or oligarchy is in charge the people should reserve the right to utilise all means, up to and including violence to remove it. The problem is its a slippery slope when you try to polarise things in a absolutist way by saying only peaceful protest is ever acceptable.

Treason (according to onan's book of legal terms in 1983 as quoted by wiki) is defined as "as acting or conspiring against the parent nation to either overthrow the government with aid of another nation, or aiding an enemy nation in times of war.

So if an american in 1943 spyed for nazi germany, or blew up a munitions plant in akron Ohio, or somehow tried to plot to over the government in the name of nazism, all of those would be considered legal 'treason".

But oddly enough-trying to overthrow the goverment without foriegn help would NOT legally be considered treason in the USA- by that definition (So the defeated confederates might not be considered traitors- but thats another can of worms) though that is considered treason in many other countries.

So timothy mcviegh- commited mass murder- and did it the name of overthrowing the government. But though he could be charged with "using weapons of mass destruction"- and of mass murder and terrorism- he could not be charged with treason. He was never following the orders of a "foreign prince".

If you were an american who had somehow helped al gueda to pull off 9-11 you might not be liable for treason either because you were not helping a foriegn power or nation- but helping stateless actors. And perhaps that might need updating- to include helping terrorist stateless actors.

The Boston bombers were not america˜citizens -so they cant be considered "traitors"- in any sense (legålly, nor otherwise). If they had been naturalized american citizens even then- their actions did not undermine america's war effort against a foriegn nation- so it still would not be considered 'treason'.

Treating them as mass murdering common criminals is fine with me. I dont see why you want to stretch the definition of treason to include them anymore than you would stretch it to include the Beltway Snipers, or the Unabomber, the Connecicut spree shooter, or the Zodiac Killer.

I used to say that any government officials who actively legislated against the teaching of legitimate science in public school science classrooms should be charged with treason, but somebody eventually showed me the actual wording of the laws and sadly treason does not technically apply to them. What they are doing is harmful to the children, to our country, and to the future of our species and our planet but it does not legally count as treason. It should though...

Those people are incredibly ignorant and badly misinformed about the subject of evolution, but apparently even though their stupid actions are harmful to our children, our country, our species and our planet there is nothing legally that can be done to stop them from trying to legislate ignorance. In my opinion what they are doing is not just treasonous to the United States but also treasonous to humanity and the planet as well, besides their calling God a liar by denying the evidence of His creation.

Thats crossed my mind as well- to charge the Kansas Board of Education with high treason by undermining the strength of 'Merica in the face of foriegn competition- by foisting creation science ( or ID or however they cloak it) on america's youth. They are( in a sense) undermining the nation in the face of foriegn competition. So it concievably could be argued that they are 'aiding foreign powers'.

Interestingly creationist advocates seemed to be aware of that. After Sputnik when America went crazy about science education the creationist kept a low profile during the whole decade of the sixties, but came out of the woodwork in the seventies (after we beat russia to the moon). Then creationist noise quieted down in the eighties when we all were convinced that Japan was gonna buy out the USA because Japanese students were beating ours in science and math.
But the anti-evolution cause got loud again in the nineties when the japanese economy faltered and america became less hysterical about foriegn competition.

America seems to be torn between fundamentalism, and patriotism, and prefers its biblical literalism during moments when foriegn powers dont threaten us. And those are the moments when the militant evolution deniers get their recruits.

Right now we are moving out of the era of being afraid of Islamic fundamentalism (not associated with any advanced scientific nation) to an era of being afraid of china ( both a comercial competitor like Japan was in the eighties, AND a military adversary like Russia was in the decades of the cold war- the worst of both worlds). So the creationist will have to find ways to sell their wares to a public returning to sputnik style pro science again.

treason specificly means betraying your country for the benifit of another.terrorism has nothing to do with treason whatsoever.unless for instance an american citizen gives al qaida intelligence they need to carry out an attack.a million terrorist attacks dont even mean treason,treason is not when an citizen commits a act of terror against there country.it is when they betray there country to another