Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

Nov

12

Charge Hasan With Treason in Addition to Murder

Filed Under Uncategorized

in addition to the murder indictments against him, the Ft. Hood Muslim Maniac, Nidal Malik Hasan, should be indicted for Treason. He took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He clearly “breached his allegiance” and acted as an enemy of the U.S. by attacking its armed forces. According to www.lectlaw.com:

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of 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.

The two witnesses necessary for conviction won’t be hard to muster even if the ACLU, in their customary fashion, furnishes the trial with their best defense lawyers.

Now if we can just find a provision of the law which provides for a public hanging in such a case!

Comments

2 Responses to “Charge Hasan With Treason in Addition to Murder”

  1. bkalafut on November 19th, 2009 2:05 am

    I’m trying to figure out to whom you are signaling what (and that’s two questions) by invoking the ACLU here. To me it just makes you sound deranged–as this doesn’t appear to be a civil liberties issue–but maybe it’s some sort of secret handshake to right-wing readers to bring the group up at random? Seems to be common practice–and it makes the restuvem sound a bit off their rockers, too.

    That having been said, plain-old murder of this sort has never been prosecuted as treason. You can’t parlay “treason” the slang term into “treason” in the American legal tradition by claiming that murder of soldiers is somehow special. Murder of a soldier–even “fragging” proximate to battle!–hasn’t been treated in this way before. If I’m wrong: can you point me to e.g. a precedent or a law review explaining that murder of soldiers constitutes the levying of war against the USA or the adhering to their enemies?

    Maybe the ACLU would get involved, at least by filing an amicus brief, were Hasan charged with treason based on a priesthood-of-all-believers aww-shucks right-wing legal theory that redefines treason…but as the civil liberties implications are unclear they might not. After all, as was commonly said at board meetings back when I was more actively involved: “It isn’t the Constitutional Law Union.”

    FWIW if you’d like examples of “adhering to their enemies” the current case of Adam Gadahn and the earlier case of Tomoya Kawakita (who tortured U.S. POWs) are worth looking up. Another interesting case is perhaps that of Iva “Tokyo Rose” Toguri, who was eventually pardoned due to evidentiary irregularities and outright perjury by the prosecution’s key witnesses.

    Of course, were one to connect Hasan with al-Qaeda or the Taliban, then the charge would make perfect sense.

  2. admin on November 19th, 2009 9:31 am

    You’re obviously piqued by my negative reference to the ACLU. I don’t want to open up another thread and get into a slugging match over ACLU’s accomplishments or sins. To me it doesn’t matter that much, but since it’s my blog and I’ve learned something from your comments (thanks) I’ll make a comment or two here.

    If the ACLU were truly dedicated to the protection of civil rights, particularly of Americans, then I’d be a supporter and donor. Some of what they do does get my support. But over the years, I like many other Americans have become convinced that too many of the group’s causes are over-zealous and destructive of valuable American traditions and values. Just because their name includes the words “civil liberties” doesn’t make their agenda a good one. Your comment regarding the need to remind yourselves (ACLU) that you are “not the Constitutional Law Union” is telling. So, never having heard of the “Constitutional Law Union” and missing the acronymic identity (duh), I googled it and came up with this which does explain ACLU’s choice of causes. I found this useful and informative. But it also reinforces my distaste for the group, although they have every right to do what they do, they don’t get praise and support from me.

    Just one more observation from the video referenced above; the Constitution puts limits on the government. It does not grant rights and liberties but does protect a subset of these. These and all other liberties derive from keeping the government out of the people’s lives. By its legal activism the ACLU gets the government into a lot of areas, such as racial and sexual matters where they are not constitutionally allowed to be involved.

    Now, with respect to treason, we’re at war with Muslim terrorists throughout the world. Hasan is an officer in the U.S. Army, sworn to “protect and defend” the country and its laws “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Had he been a civilian, I would not have advocated a charge of treason. But as an army officer in the midst of a war, an obvious jihadi attack against U.S. soldiers is treason.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.