Treason Is A Newly Popular Word—Here’s What It Really Means

by Robert A. Sedler

In the furor over the anonymous New York Times op-ed by a Trump administration “senior official,” the word “treason” has been used by a variety of people.

President Trump tweeted “TREASON?” in an apparent reference to the op-ed’s author. Trump’s supporters have likewise used the word in attacks on the author – and the newspaper for printing it.

Trump’s opponents have likewise bandied the word about by saying that the op-ed was not “treasonous.” Instead, they say that Trump himself is guilty of “treason” by trying to obstruct the investigation into the claimed Russian interference in the 2016 election. Earlier this year, Trump opponents also claimed he committed treason at his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As a constitutional scholar, I’d like to remind people there is a precise definition of “treason” set forth in the Constitution. None of the recent charges of treason remotely fit that definition. The claims that one side or the other have committed treason are ignorant of the law.

Mildred Gillars, center, known to American GIs in WWII as ‘Axis Sally,’ arrives in the U.S. to face a treason charge. AP/Harvey Georges

Nothing Worse

Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution. It is a heinous crime, the worst crime that can be committed by an American citizen. It is a betrayal of the nation and of values embodied in the American constitutional system.

It can be punished by death.

When the framers defined “treason” in Article III, Section 3, they were determined to avoid the use of “treason” as it had been used in English law to punish opponents of the king.

In English law, “treason” meant acts of disloyalty to the king. A person convicted of “treason” was not only executed, but all of his property was “attained” – or confiscated by the government.

This was not the way the crime of treason would operate in the United States, which was founded by those who had rebelled against the British king. The framers of the constitution made sure of that.

Here’s how the framers defined treason:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

So, the crime of treason can only be committed by an American citizen during time of war with a foreign enemy.

The last convictions for treason took place in the wake of World War II. They included the conviction of an American citizen known as “Axis Sally” for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a radio station in Germany during World War II.

The constitutional provision also imposes stringent requirements for a conviction of treason:

“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.”

By requiring this type of direct evidence, the framers minimized the danger of an innocent person being convicted, and prevented the possibility of a charge of treason being brought by a single person.

Third, there can be no punishment of anyone other than the person convicted of treason:

“The Congress shall have the 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.”

Ignoring the US Constitution

Let’s review. In the American constitutional system, the crime of treason is specifically defined in the Constitution to be limited to acts aiding the enemy in time of war. It can only be proven by the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. And the punishment cannot extend beyond the person convicted of treason.

For anyone from the president on down to accuse any person of “treason” for any other action – no matter how egregious and no matter how harmful to the interests of the United States that action may be – is just plain wrong.

Worse yet, it flagrantly ignores what the framers were trying to accomplish with their narrow and precise definition of treason and the safeguards surrounding any conviction for that crime.

The Constitution means what it says. Nothing else can be treason.

Originally published at The Conversation

Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on September 11, 2018. Filed under COMMENTARY/OPINION. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Back to Main Page

3 Responses to Treason Is A Newly Popular Word—Here’s What It Really Means

  1. Glenn R. Geist Reply

    September 12, 2018 at 11:37 am

    It speaks to the degradation of our language. Obama was accused of it on an almost daily basis, exactly what the basis for that is I don’t know, but the Affordable Care Act was part of it on several occasions. Bill Clinton suffered the same accusations and perhaps George W Bush.

    The once and briefly famous John Lindh – the “American Taliban” remains in prison for fighting along with the Taliban and I suppose that’s treason although we must remember that our last declared war ended in 1945, so it can be a problem. Certainly the Trump gang isn’t going to be put up against a wall and shot, and far from it, he may be re-elected, because what is or isn’t treason – what happened or didn’t is only a matter of perspective, the wreckage of a corrupted language floating in a sea of hyperbole and driven by the winds of hyperbole.

    Lock him up anyway.

  2. Michael John Scott Reply

    September 12, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    John Lindh! Wow. Now there’s a name from the past. I had completely forgotten about him. As to Trump, well, yes, lock him up anyway!

  3. Glenn R. Geist Reply

    September 13, 2018 at 10:53 am

    And throw away the key!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.