Can a President pardon someone for treason?

[elehhhhna]

[jmg257]

1. Anyone in mind?

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Why not? The Constitution only restricts him in cases of impeachment...

which, I assume, stops him from pardoning himself, along with federal judges and others tried by Congress, not courts.

Impeachment is a political, not criminal, procedure.

Anyway, that would be a tough one to pull off.

[unblock]

3. constitutionally, yes. politically, that's another story....

[Historic NY]

4. You mean like....

[PoliticAverse]

5. Yes. You may want to review the Constitutional definition of treason if you have someone...

specific in mind.

[jberryhill]

6. Yes

Would you kindly provide a list of countries which are currently deemed "enemies" of the United States by either some sort of declaration of war or otherwise?

Because absent a defined "enemy", I'd like to know how you are defining "treason".

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Do you have cites for how in US law "treason" needs enemies while at war? Historically...

it looks like it can mean almost anything contrary to US interests. British law, which was the basis of our law in the early days, considered attacks on the Queen to be treason.

How would it work in an undeclared war, like Viet Nam, or even Korea? The Cold War?

What is Snowden?

Aldrich Ames?

The Rosenbergs?

Robert Hanssen?

John Walker, Jr.?

Granted, they'll prosecute for espionage or something else to avoid the question of treason, but the differences don't seem terribly significant.

[jberryhill]

9. "the differences don't seem terribly significant"

The differences are significant.

There are a lot of forms of, say, "stealing" something. It can be a robbery, a burglary, a theft, etc.. If someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, you don't go running around saying "that guy should be arrested for burglary."

Words have meanings.

None of the people you list have been charged or tried for "treason". There hasn't been a conviction for treason since 1952, and it involved a declared enemy during a declared war.

The way it is so loosely used here and in other political contexts, it is merely a personal expression of a desire to have someone executed.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. So, can there be "treason" without a declared shooting war? Aside from some dictionaries claiming...

knowledge, saying that our definition was restricted to avoid the British expansion of the term to hang just about anyone they didn't like, I haven't seen anything definitive about just how restrictive the language is.

When I talk of "significance" I'm thinking about how the Rosenbergs were not "traitors" because the Soviets had been our allies. If they sold stuff to Germany during the war, they would have been traitors. The damage they did, however, was a bit more than Tokyo Rose's.

[Yo_Mama]

18. The Constitution defines the term! Here it is, Article 3, Section 3

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 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 Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

At DU, many will do anything except read the Constitution. It's short. Try it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Oh come on-- you should know by now that simply quoting the Constitution means little...

Every word and punctuation mark in it has been litigated for over 200 years and the point is not what it says, but what meanings, interpretations, and definitions the courts and legislatures have assigned to those words over the years.

[dumbcat]

36. Words mean nothing.

I'll tell you what words mean, though.

[onenote]

10. A fuller explanation of why Flynn's activities vis-a-vis Russia aren't "treason"

There's a reason that treason has been so rarely prosecuted in the country's history. There's a reason that the Rosenbergs were not prosecuted for treason (whether they should've been convicted of espionage is another issue), why Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen weren't prosecuted for treason. Why John Walker Lindh wasn't prosecuted for treason. Why Edward Snowden hasn't been and won't be prosecuted for treason.

There are two circumstances in which someone can be charged with treason under the Constitution -- narrow by design of the founding fathers.

First, you can commit treason by "levying war" against the United States and second you can commit treason by giving aid and comfort to an "enemy" of the United States.

The meaning of those terms is well settled. Levying war means taking up arms. And as for whether Trump gave aid and comfort to an "enemy," I refer you to the definition of enemy found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not amount to a conflict subject to the laws of war. Countries that are in a state of war with one another do not maintain diplomatic relations. We have diplomatic relations with Russia. Countries that are in a state of war with one another do not engage in bilateral trade. We have bilateral trade with Russia. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html

Consequently, Flynn won't be and cannot be charged with treason.

[KittyWampus]

12. We are engaged in Cyber Warfare with Russia. It is as real as bombs and potentially more dangerous.

Just because you don't see B-52's carpet bombing or drones taking out groups in the desert doesn't mean we are not engaged in actual war.

[onenote]

16. See post #15.

[KittyWampus]

22. Why? You think "taking up arms" only means attacking with projective weaponry?

[onenote]

33. Yes. it does.

Even though you incorrectly think it doesn't.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. That's the answer I was looking for-- defining hostilities, even if war is undeclared.

[KittyWampus]

23. Still doesn't preclude Cyber Warfare. It's like I'm arguing with the medieval French

who insisted on going to the battlefield on armed horses while the English brought their archers and mowed them down.

Richard Clarke wrote a book about this subject. It seems it isn't just our Democratic leadership who is slow on the uptake.
https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-War-Threat-National-Security/dp/0061962244

[TreasonousBastard]

28. Relax-- things are moving too fast for the law. Congress only recently heard of the Internet...

and still hasn't figured it out. Yes present wars are often fought in cyberspace, and future ones might be entirely in cyberspace.

But, it appears that, legally, only a hot war is a war, although subterfuges and spying, similar to our modern cyber warfare, have been going on pretty much forever.

And, aside from our own Constitution, things like "what is war" are decided by international custom and agreement.

My personal experience with the legalities of war involves ocean marine insurance and the war exclusion-- similar to the war exclusion in all policies. It can be bought back for international shipping and cargo because ships can wander into war zones without knowing it. The war policy does exclude war between the great powers, though, and in order to place a claim, an international consortium has to declare that a war exists and that you wandered into it accidentally.

There is no provision for cyberwarfare or spying in the war perils policy.

[maxrandb]

25. Sorry but eff that

Do you think Retrumplicans and hate radio hosts would give a shit what the "definition" of treason is if this were a Dem admin?

Let them fucking explain the nuances of treason. We don't need to help them

[Maru Kitteh]

32. Lucky we don't allow radio hosts to define law or the constitution

At the height of the cold war, the Rosenbergs were executed, not for treason, but for violations of the espionage act of 1917. They couldn't be charged with treason because we were not at war with the USSR.

The were still made very dead, with or without the legalities of treason.

The trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg begins in New York Southern District federal court. Judge Irving R. Kaufman presides over the espionage prosecution of the couple accused of selling nuclear secrets to the Russians (treason could not be charged because the United States was not at war with the Soviet Union). The Rosenbergs, and co-defendant, Morton Sobell, were defended by the father and son team of Emanuel and Alexander Bloch. The prosecution includes the infamous Roy Cohn, best known for his association with Senator Joseph McCarthy.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rosenberg-trial-begins

[onenote]

7. Yes they can. Yes they have.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

Of course, you're thinking about Flynn. Only one problem -- he isn't going to be charged with treason because his actions don't constitute treason as that offense is defined in the Constitution and had been interpreted for over 200 years.

[KittyWampus]

14. Once more, we are engaged in war with Russia. Cyber Warfare. Just because no footage of bombing

exists, we were attacked last year on a scale comparable to September 11th.

That we ended up having our Federal Government taken over by a puppet of a foreign hostile power who engaged in that cyber warfare proves my point.

[onenote]

15. Sorry, but we are not in a state of war with Russia. Really.

If we are, we're in a state of war with a bunch of countries that engage in cyber attacks on our government and citizens.

And we're engaging in war against a bunch of countries against whom we engage in cyberespionage and cyber-disruption.

These terms -- war, enemy, etc. have established meanings. Countries who are at war with one another do not maintain diplomatic relations with each other, do not trade with each other. Which is why we were not in a state of war after 9/11 with the countries whose nationals carried out those attacks.

[KittyWampus]

21. Yes, we are engaged in Cyber Warfare with Russia. What happened prior and during our last election

is vastly different since our enemy colluded with Republicans.

The problem is apparently too many still think warfare involves dropping bombs.

[onenote]

34. Cyber warfare isn't war that is subject to the rules of war.

Again, we have diplomatic relations with Russia. We trade with Russia. We're not at war with Russia.

We've spied on them and they've spied on us forever. US citizens, convicted of espionage that led to the death of US assets in the "cold war" weren't charged with treason. The cold war wasn't a war as that term is used in the context of the Constitution's treason clause. And neither is cyber war.

[Yo_Mama]

19. No, we're not. We have diplomatic relations, and the hacking stuff was not remotely

comparable to September 11th.

[KittyWampus]

20. Obama dispels Russian diplomats. And again, just because YOU don't know what Cyber Warfare is

doesn't mean that we aren't engage in warfare.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack

https://www.amazon.com/Cyber-War-Threat-National-Security/dp/0061962244

[Maru Kitteh]

31. At the height of the cold war, the Rosenbergs could not be charged with treason

because we were not at war with the Soviet Union, but they were still executed under the espionage act of 1917.

Rhetoric does not a state of war make, but violations not considered treason in the legal sense can prove a distinction without a difference.

The trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg begins in New York Southern District federal court. Judge Irving R. Kaufman presides over the espionage prosecution of the couple accused of selling nuclear secrets to the Russians (treason could not be charged because the United States was not at war with the Soviet Union). The Rosenbergs, and co-defendant, Morton Sobell, were defended by the father and son team of Emanuel and Alexander Bloch. The prosecution includes the infamous Roy Cohn, best known for his association with Senator Joseph McCarthy.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-rosenberg-trial-begins

[onenote]

35. I don't know why you think I don't know what cyber warfare is.

But I do know that cyber warfare, like the cold war, isn't war as that term is used in the Constitution. And expelling some diplomats is not the same as ceasing to have diplomatic relations, which is part of the very notion of a war -- the end of diplomacy. And can you name another instance in which the US was at war with a country while simultaneously engaging in bilateral trade with them?

[libtodeath]

17. Repukes laugh at treason when it is there own.

[NYC Liberal]

24. George Washington pardoned multiple people convicted of treason.

[briv1016]

27. Who's going to charge Flynn with treason? Sessions?

[meadowlander]

29. Who can bring the prosecution?

If it's the Justice Department, I'm sure Sessions will insist on a lower charge like "involuntary chinwagging" and Flynn will get a slap on the wrist.

[jmg257]

30. HoR...

The articles of impeachment are the set of charges drafted against a public official to initiate the impeachment process. The articles of impeachment do not result in the removal of the official, but instead require the enacting body to take further action, such as bringing the articles to a vote before the full body.
In the United States, the articles of impeachment are drafted by the House of Representatives for cases involving federal officials. Once drafted, a supermajority of the United States Senate is required to convict based on the articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_impeachment