Tom Nichols on "treason" vs. "traitor"

[Qutzupalotl]

Link to tweet

Some of you have noted my willingness now to use "traitorous" to describe FOX hosts plumping for Russia. I use this word to be distinct from "treason" which has a specific meaning in the Constitution.

I think - and as always, I speak for no one but myself - when you root for an avowed enemy of the United States and prefer their leaders to your own, you are a traitor to your country. You are supporting those who seek the destruction of your country's system of government.

I see no reason to pussyfoot around with "un-American." Lots of things are "un-American" but we can disagree about what they are. But when you are gleefully contemplating Putin kicking Biden's ass in a public debate, you've gone past un-American.

In my most entrenched moments of opposing Donald Trump, I never said he was not my President, I never doubted his legitimate authority as POTUS - and often defended his rights as CINC - and I never hoped for a foreign power to defeat him or us. I opposed him within our system.

If you are siding with enemies of the United States purely to settle your resentful, petty scores with your fellow citizens, I am at a loss for how to describe you other than as a traitor.

[Qutzupalotl]

1. As one commenter put it,

Treason has a specific legal definition, but traitorous is a moral judgement.

[Martin68]

2. I remember some on DU pushing back against use of the word "treason" to describe Trump's

relationship with Russia, reminding us that the legal us of the word is quite specific. I haven't hard that much lately, once it became clear that Trump's actions as outlined in the Mueller report did in fact meet the definition of treason. The same is true of many who participated in the recent insurrection in the Capitol building. There were many idiots along for the ride or acting out their own paranoid political delusions, but there were indeed those who planned to stop the electoral vote count by force and kidnap certain political representatives. What they planned to do with them is not clear, but the intentions were treasonous.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. It's a gray area, so I avoid the term in discussions with RWers.

The Constitution considers treason to be giving aid and comfort to our enemies, which strictly speaking means declared enemies. Since the U.S. has not officially declared war on Russia, I couldn't justify using the word treason. (Russia, however, considers itself at war with us, and says so on their state-run TV.) I think this distinction is why Weissman was reluctant to characterize Flynn's actions as treason, when asked by Judge Sullivan whether his actions met that standard.

But Team Trump's actions definitely betrayed our country at every turn, so I liberally use the term traitorous.

[Martin68]

4. Evidence in Capitol Attack Most Likely Supports Sedition Charges, Prosecutor Says

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — Evidence the government obtained in the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol most likely meets the bar necessary to charge some of the suspects with sedition, Michael R. Sherwin, the federal prosecutor who had been leading the Justice Department’s inquiry, said in an interview that aired on Sunday.

The department has rarely brought charges of sedition, the crime of conspiring to overthrow the government.

But in an interview with “60 Minutes,” Mr. Sherwin said prosecutors had evidence that most likely proved such a charge.

“I personally believe the evidence is trending toward that, and probably meets those elements,” Mr. Sherwin said. “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/03/21/us/politics/capitol-riot-sedition.amp.html
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142716362

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142716362