ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Treason charge in California?

Captain Ed comments on the arrests of the Al Queda suspects in California today and recommends charging them with treason:

I may not be a lawyer, but in my opinion this amounts to one crime: treason. A US citizen has not only given aid and comfort to our enemy during wartime, but has explicity allied himself with them and actively pursued attempts to carry out missions against us on their behalf. If the evidence shows this to be true, Hamid should face trial in federal court for treason and suffer the consequences of that crime. Charging him with anything less would not only encourage others by a show of irresoluteness, but it would mean that no one could ever be tried and convicted of treason in the future. If what Hamid allegedly did doesn't fit the definition, then nothing will.

While I agree that this fits the definition of treason, I'm struggling to see how they could get a conviction when you look at the potential jury pool in California. It would only take one "activist" on the jury (such as a Downer) and there would be a hung jury.

The talking head shows would be full of defense lawyers talking about how the treason statute is so broad, and shooting at pictures of Bush is not treasonus, since after all he's evil.

Still I'm with Captain Ed. If you don't charge them with treason on this, what would you? My guess is that they would be charged under some of the new domestic terrorism laws, plus conspiracy.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian