A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
I happen to know quite a good deal about treason. It’s one of the many specialties of my job that I investigate. The Mudville Gazette posted a story a couple of days ago about an NPR journalist that interviewed an Iraqi insurgent.
In the story, the insurgent, “Abu Abdul Aziz”, says that he has “killed many Americans, not just one or two. When I kill them, I feel happy, like victory is coming.” He says he will continue to target Americans.
Since this interview occurred, four Soldiers have been killed in Iraq. It’s pretty safe to assume that the reporter did not give any of this information to military units in Iraq. So, is this treason?
In the Army we define treason as “without proper authority, knowingly harboring or protecting or giving intelligence to, communicating or corresponding with or holding any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly.” The Constitution of the United States, Article III, defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to [its] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Isn’t it interesting that treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution? Do you think that’s because it’s important to the safety and security of the United States? I do.
Some argue the Constitution may be somewhat vague in its definition. If you look at Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the completely out of control book of US laws, treason is defined in Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381 as:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
We need to break that down a bit first. The first question would have to be: Does NPR “owe allegience to the United States”? According to its mission statement, NPR only owes allegiance to its “members in matter of their mutural interest”. It’s not a government agency, but it is a non-profit United States incorporated organization. I guess the better question would be to ask NPR if they owe allegience to the United States. If they do not, then we revoke their non-profit status and send them somewhere (Iraq?) where they DO owe allegiance. If they owe allegiance to the United States, then I guess they would be legally guilty of treason.
With that said, let’s push all this aside for a moment and get more personal. What if this Abu Abdul Aziz character was responsible for the death of Jonathan Roberge earlier this week? He was just 22 years old and now his parents and younger sisters and brother have to bury him and will never have their son back. What would his family think about NPR meeting with and talking to the people responsible for his death and not telling us?
(60) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
Lisa: I also met him on Are You Interested... and got the poems :-) If
Kat
CJ,
I do feel this is treason. However, I don’t think that we charge treason on anyone anymore. Otherwise, I feel like Jane Fonda, should have been charged with treason during the Vietnam war.
The media now covers war in a whole new way since the introduction of embedded reporting, so much of this support for the enemy is covered up as freedom of the press.
I think this is a very dangerous trend.
Critical Facts
cj:
This is one of the most absurd top posts I have ever read at ASP. You conclude that because allegiance is owed by NPR to the US, then NPR is guilty of treason. WTF????
What about the rest of the statute? Please analyze for us where NPR provided aid or comfort or adhered to the insurgent.
You do a disservice to your readers by tossing out this kind of red meat, and Kat’s misinformed response to the top post exemplifies my point.
CJ
Explain to me how allowing an individual admitting he is killing American troops is allowed to go free by the press and then you’ll have your answer to what is aid and comfort is being provided to the enemy. I don’t expect you to understand.
If we ever capture him, I’ll let you know so can line up as part of his defense team.
No disservice has been to my readers – except the ones like you who tend to sympathize with the terrorists.
Critical Facts
NPR is and was not charged with capturing the enemy. That is the job of the military.
Regardless, I fail to see how an interview either aids or comforts the enemy under any “legal” definition of the term.
CJ
Of course not. I didn’t expect you to.
Critical Facts
Well, apparently, both the Bush and Obama administrations as well as Congress also fail to see how an interview either aids or comforts the enemy under any “legal” definition of the term.
I guess it’s just you and Kat.
CJ
True leaders frequently stand alone!
Critical Facts
Agreed!
Mickey
CJ, I guess CF is drinking the kool-aid again.
Kat
ha-ha thanks for that point Mickey, I was beginning to think I had been slipped some kool-aid.
SSgtJ
No Kat, you have not been slipped any kool aid. You are right on and have a lot of support out here.
NY-David
Although I’m a huge NPR fan, I don’t feel this reporter did this in earnest and probably thought it would get big air for telling “how the other side feels”. I don’t feel it was treasonous, just scummy useless journalism.
NY-David
SSgtJ
You may be right on this in terms of intent. There may be some ‘aid and comfort’ in there whether it was intended or not. Those of us who lived through the Jane Fonda ‘treason’ know about the ‘aid and comfort’ that she DID provide to the communist.
OEF_Veteran
So any time someone has a different opinion than you, you decide to put them down and belittle them…I am sure glad you are so open minded to other opinions.
All you have succeeded in doing is making yourself appear as a close-minded individual who cannot use any critical thinking skills.
Remember this, the fathers of our country were considered insurgents by the most powerful nation on the planet at the time.
What flavor was the kool aid today?
NY-David
Sorry, not sure whom you were responding to. I don’t drink kool aid, but enjoy a good Mountain Dew.
NY-David
Mrs G
I don’t feel this reporter did this in earnest and probably thought it would get big air for telling “how the other side feels”.
The bottom line to me is moral integrity, and NPR has none.
NY-David
Sorry to disagree, but I get a better understand without the useless banter that Fox and CNN are spewing out these days. I’ll also put BBC America up with NPR for news and information.
NY-David
Critical Facts
What boggles my mind is the number of folks these days that will choose Hannity or Limbaugh over NPR (or the BBC) when it comes to news and analysis.
Oh well, to each, his or her own.
NY-David
Hannity, Limbough, and Madow and Mahler (from the left) for that matter are commentators at best, but occasionally bring good issues to light. Entertaining sometimes but not news in my mind.
NY-David
SSgtJ
Have you ever watched Shepard Smith on Fox?
CJ
So, what about the people who listen to Limbaugh AND Boortz AND the BBC AND Fox News AND CNN? What’s wrong with Limbaugh that everyone seems to be worried about? Has he lied about something because the last time I asked you this question you never answered and just resorted to ad hominem.
LtCol S
What all of you NPR fans fail to consider is that by airing an interview with a terrorist (read enemy) this directly supports their cause and provides them a critical asset in their fight. I order for them to succeed and gain support, they need to be heard. The interview gives their cause legitimacy.
So, even if NPR did not inform the military of the location of the terrorist (which would have been the patriotic thing to do), NPR most certainly DID aid the enemy in their cause by providing them a means to gain popular support. That equals treason.
Anyone who can’t see the way the press continually focuses on the negative (headline making) tidbits and mistakes our military occasionaly make while ignoring the HUGE sacrifices and positive contributions that have been achieved in supporting Iraq and Afghanastan is just plain nieve.
Kat
Thanks LtCol, in all of my best efforts I have an inability to express myself, you have just said it all for me.
I appreciate the sanity!
Terry
Sorry to see such postings. Journalists have a mission to perform, and so does the military.
Mickey
Yes, journalist have a mission to perform and that at one time or another was to report the truth, not the twisted stories they tell. Journalism was to inform not to misinform. Today they only 1/2 a story or report the things that sell left politics or the bad parts never the good. What a shame!!!!!
George
Let us not forget, freedom of the press — TRUE Freedom of The Press — is a rare and precious thing.
Reporting a man’s unverifiable claim of having killed Americans cannot disqualify any journalist.
CJ
Yeah, you people make me sick!
Robin
CJ,
What is going on?! You are starting to sound like you’re not listening. Several of your commenters made significant, relevant points and you just blew them off and even called them terrorist sympathizers. I certainly hope you are drunk. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you is no reason to stoop that low. Be the better man.
Sincerely,
Robin
SSgtJ
Robin, I don’t see that, do you have an example so we can see what you are talking about?
CJ
Please show where i’ve blown them off. I can’t argue with ignorance, but if I’ve missed a relevant point, let me know.
Kat
It is hard to listen to liberal crap when your family and friends are out in the field and people who enjoy the freedom they provide BLOW off their safety!! Talk about blowing someone off.
Robin
CJ,
I’ve included your comments to Critical Fatcs: “If we ever capture him, I’ll let you know so can line up as part of his defense team. No disservice has been to my readers – except the ones like you who tend to sympathize with the terrorists.”
I happen to agree with CF. The Constitution states: 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. A video tape is not an overt act and is not sufficient.
That was included in the Constitution to preclude a charge of treason being used against political opponents. Kind of like the way you came to your conclusion.
Respectfully,
Robin
SSgtJ
Robin, thanks for giving me an example. I really appreciate it. There may be a bit of a difference between a ‘legal’ standpoint and a ‘moral’ standpoint.
May I ask, overall, do you think the comments CF offers make him look like he tends “to sympathize with the terrorists.”?
CJ
Robin, in that case I’ll serve as the first witness. Sounds like I only need one more. This WAS an overt act. She didn’t stumble into this interview. It was planned, coordinated, held, closed, produced, and then aired. Sounds pretty overt to me.
This is a legal issue, as well as a moral one. I have friends who have died in Iraq. I almost didn’t make it back from Iraq. The people NPR is talking to are responsible. The terrorists and insurgents have plenty of opportunities to get their voices heard.
I work in counter-terrorism. It’s my function in life. The only way they are able to continually carry out their mission is publicity. Through media interviews, they get across their message to like-minded individuals and rally the cause. By airing their cause, NPR has committed treason!
Yes, if you disagree with that, then in my mind you sympathize with the terrorists. Sorry to be so blunt. Maybe if more people had their heads sawed off, they’d understand a bit more, but I’m trying to prevent that and I could use a little help (in form of not helping them) from the media!
Robin
SSgtJ and CJ,
The reason treason is so very hard to prove is because it is such an easy charge to throw around. Your opinion as to what constitutes aid and comfort to the enemy is just that, opinion. Using your own methology, any medic that treats a wounded enemy is providing aid and comfort and is therefore guilty of treason. The charge was made almost impossible to prove because it has been so misused. Our founding fathers understood that and did what they could to preclude treason charges. That is why it takes two eye witnesses or a confession in open court. A confession itself isn’t adequate. It must be in open court and not while under interrogation. In my opinion, NPR did NOT provide aid and comfort to the enemy.
An overt act is something that provides a physical assist to the enemy. A video tape, no matter how reprehensible, is not overt since you weren’t actually there when the interview took place. Video can be faked and people often exagerate for the camera.
I certainly do not want to execute anyone because of my opinion of their actions. I swore to defend the entire Constitution, not just the parts I like.
Respectfully,
Robin
Critical Facts
One thing to add is the Supreme Court has yet to construe “aid and comfort” as it applies to treason; at least not that I am aware. Such cases just do not make their way to federal courts all that often; particulary as concerns the instant matter as the 1st Amend. is so squarely implicated.
Personally, I think the charge of “sympathizing with terrorists” is just red-meat to trivialize and over sensationalize an important topic.
CJ
In the words of your esteemed new fan, CF, you’re comparing apples and oranges. A wounded enemy being treated by a medic has been taken off the battlefield and is no longer a threat. A terrorist being interviewed about his killings is still a threat and, therefore, a completely different example all together.
Robin
CF,
You are now engaging in political semantics. By using the word trivialize, you are being very disrespectful to other people’s opinions. Lets stop with the hyperbolies and have a serious discussion. Most times, a different perspective yields different lessons learned. That does not trivialize those opinions or lessons. What makes someone else’s opinion or experiences trivial? If you dismiss the argument of the other person, you negate your own argument because then there is nothing to discuss and eventually, nothing to learn.
Respectfully,
Robin
Critical Facts
Agreed! However, it is difficult to bring a discussion back above board when the initial point is responded to as “sympathizing with terrorists.” It is a common theme in response to my points here at ASP. I’ll try and do better in the future, notwithstanding.
CJ
Robin, the reason I’ll engage you in a normal conversation and resort to charges of “sympathizing with terrorists” is that CF has been here long enough to get an idea of where he is. He is one of the most partisan people I’ve “met”. Not as bad as what’s his name that I banned, but enough to not take anything he says as a valid argument. He doesn’t know hot to “stop with the hyperbolies and have a serious discussion” because he can’t see “a different perspective” from his own. I use a lot of strong and emotional language when dealing with him.
Critical Facts
cj:
And you have seen or acknowledged a different perspective than your own how many times?
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, if I may so kindly and respectively say!
CJ
When you answer my question, I’ll answer yours. Sorry I can’t be on the computer 24 hours a day. Unlike you, I’m not sitting on my ass waiting for the next terrorist I can represent in court.
Critical Facts
Gosh, cj, is the extended silence an admission that you are no less “partisan” than I am?
NY-David
CF,
I’ve been advised to tell you that CJ is currently without PC access and can’t respond at the moment. Silence, in this sense doesn’t mean consent.
NY-David
Critical Facts
Thanks, David. I suspect, however, that I already know the answer to my own question
CJ
Again, you answer my question and I’ll entertain yours (because your assumption IS entertaining).
Amy
I have found this topic fascinating. While I don’t have a law degree nor am I a constitutional expert, I am an American with strong opinions on the matter. First, I believe our media has abused the first amendment. With freedom comes responsibility but we only seem to want the freedom regardless of the consequences resulting from exercising those freedoms. I firmly believe that the media and our own public officials such as Rep. John Murtha, my own former Mayor Rocky Anderson and many more, are directly responsible for more of our troops coming home in caskets. I believe they have slowed and even jeopardized the ability to declare victory in this war. The media has publicly validated the enemy and I would say sided with the enemy by giving them a forum from which to convey their message, recruit and gain momentum in their effort to kill Americans. Many of our citizens and public officials have taken to the airways stating that what America and it’s military are doing is wrong and often sympathize with the enemy as more KIA’s are announced. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Any American citizen who sides with the enemy (and yes I am saying I believe many have indeed sided with the enemy) should have strong consequences to face. Current society has evolved to where there is no black and white, no right and wrong. The fact that we must debate if it is okay or not to sit with terrorist who are killing our troops, and give them a forum in which to make their case, seems to only demonstrate how far wrong we have gone. I think charging treasonous acts (in which there are so many of now in the name of freedom) would be a good place to start.
NY-David
Might I remind people that we had correspondents in Tokyo and Berlin during WWII. Many times reporting what was given to them, but often times sticking their neck out to report the less-then-obvious.
As Amy remarks, its facinating and not black and white anymore. The guy who sells lamb and rice on the street near my office is Palestinian. Am I giving “aid and comfort” by buying from him?
NY-David
SSgtJ
NY-David, you make some good points about war reporting from WWII. Like Amy, I am not a lawyer and have already stated that I see a difference between a legal issue and a moral issue. It does SEEM like some in the current media are actually rooting against the USA.
As for buying the lamb and rice from the street vendor… Do you think that he is sending the proceeds to behead Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims? By buying from him, are you telling the world that the Americans are wrong and should be destroyed?
NY-David
I like to think that over the past five years, I’ve become a better consumer of news. Much as a pick through the apples I don’t like, I’m not going to stop because I occasionially eat a bad one.
I listen to the story several times and I found areas where I thought the journalist instilled his opinion and that gave away his intention. The other side of all of this is that he exposed these idiots for the scum that they are and it makes you see why Petreus’ strategy of “hearts and minds” was so successful.
As for my steet vendor, I don’t know what he does with the money and we live in a wonderful country that says he can do with it what he likes.
NY-David
SSgtJ
Agreed.
Mike in NY
NY-DAVID,
Please name the reporters that were in Berlin and Tokyo in WW 2.
NY-David
I’ll have to get back to you on that one, but its pretty common knowledge.
NY-David
Mike in NY
We have been fighting these bastards since the birth of this country. Look at the so called Barbary Pirates of the early 1800′s who were nothing else then Muslim barbarians/nut cases. They were only defeated by putting a ship’s cannons or a musket to their head to keep them quiet(means dead). That’s the only thing they respect not chicken and rice for your meal and wondering where the money is going in a free market.
NY-David
Yes, we (and other countries) actually paid them money (called “tributes”) to them for some time before we had the naval might to kick their butt.
NY-David
Mickey
NY David, quote; “As for my steet vendor, I don’t know what he does with the money and we live in a wonderful country that says he can do with it what he likes.” I agree with you on this expect are having a few doubts after seeing the video of the camps on our soil. One almost in my backyard. What are we to do?
NY-David
Mickey,
No one ever said that living in the freeist country in the world is easy and I challenge you that this is the same. Vigilance without turning into McCarthy-ism is what I go for.
NY-David
NY-David
I might remark that NPR ran a great piece last night profiling how a Marine Colnel was able to overcome his mental anguish from what he saw in Iraq and how he’s helping others. You can hear it here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100758626
Just because you don’t like socotash doesn’t mean you shouldn’t eat your veggies.
NY-David
LtCol S
So as not to bash NPR as the sole red-haired stepshild of the media, one should consider the more pervasive consequences the media’s abuse of the First Ammendment is causing.
There is a good article on this at FreedomForum.org titled “Is the Press Guilty of Treason?” found at http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16704
I, for one, feel the media has continually done three things in direct opposition to our national security:
1. Challenge the Legitimacy of the War on Terrorism.
2. Demoralize the Troops and Damage American Commitment (I am a soldier and they definately do this very, very well).
3. Provide “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy while Attacking America.
History and the American voters will judge the validity of our war on terrorism. The media should refrain from being the press-agent for al Qaeda. The media’s liberal bent that almost completely fails to report on the positive contributions of our deployed military and our Department of Homeland Security is just plain un-American. The military may have its warts, but they also have a heart of gold and are doing a yoemans job dealing with terrorism. Where is that story?
First, the media should be ashamed. Second, they should be held accountable for what truly DOES amount to treason. Their greed is endangering American lives daily, just to attract readers, viewers and listeners. If that’s not treason, then what is?
Matt
As with anything in life there must be give and take. Consider the alternative:
We live in what would ammount to a police state where the government controls what the media can and can’t do. I mean when you break it down, that is what you are asking for. The quickest way to defeat a democracy is to relinquish free speech. I for one think that it is sad that you have bravely fought for our country (something that I admit I have never done and try not to take for granted) and seem to be missing what you are fighting for: freedom, both of expression and thought.
Unfortunately we can’t have it both ways and we might have to risk some of our security to protect the freedoms that make this country what it is. While I might not risk as much as some, I will take my portion of the risk gladly to protect our nations true freedoms. I for one applaud NPR for providing information on our enemy that we would never get if these journalists turned over their sources to the military.