Too Much To Dream

I've given up on treason charges ever being pressed. What on earth does it take to qualify as treason these days?

After the shooting begins they will probably be hostages, wondering why all those nice U.S. Embassy personnel can't save them from this predicament that (in their twisted minds) George W. Bush caused. Being chained to a water pipe in some Iraqi ammo dump while bombs explode all around them may be a punishment that fits the crime.

When we do finally prove to the world that the WMD actually exist in Iraq these "human sheilds" should be held to account for their treason (if they survive this folly).

Since these human shields have volunteered their lives and have traveled far to protect Saddam’s property, they should probably be classified as ‘combatants’. This would be in contrast to ordinary Iraqi citizens, who are not voluntarily participating in this war, and who are non-combatants.

Mary,

They are indeed combatants, and unlawful combatants (war criminals) at that.

Andi,

There hasn't been a US Embassy in Iraq since 1990. We don't have diplomatic relations.

In addition, David, US citizens aren't allowed to travel to Iraq without authorization from the State Department. And US passports aren't valid for travel there.

So how are all these people getting there?

You may have a problem proving treason against the leaders not actually participating as human shields, but I don't think the actual participants will be around to prosecute.

P.S. Remember Tom Turnipseed? He's leaving to join the human shields. He said he cried when liberated Kuwait in 1991. His wife's staying home only because she wants to see her grandchildren being born.

RJT,

I wouldn't think that would really be so difficult: that's what the law of conspiracy is for. Prove the agreement, prove the underlying crime, and the parties to the former are guilty of the latter.

I agree that they're traitors, but treason is a tough one to prove. You have to have witnesses and a overwhelming amount of evidence to prove it. I think it may be handled a little differently than conspiracy, but I could be wrong.

I think RJT's right. There probably won't be too many of them left to prosecute.

Joy, you missed that part - it's only two witnesses, nothing more on overwhelming evidence.

Anyone who is in Iraq when the shooting starts is guilty of treason. It would be appropriate to not impose the death penalty for these cases, I think. But anyone who goes into the violent, bomb-throwing mode of the 60s should absolutely be held to the highest penalty. "Aid and comfort" is one thing; bombing a building is an outright act of war.

As Lenny Bruce once said, "Let's shoot about 600 of them as a warning."

Joy,

I'm a lawyer, so I apologize if maybe I skipped over things I should have spelled out to a lay audience (G-d, that sounds condescending; sorry, but I don't know how else to say it). All the parties to a criminal conspiracy are liable for reasonably forseeable criminal acts in furtherance of that conspiracy. Hence, the specific individual charged with treason wouldn't necessarily have to be the same one observed by the constitutionally-required two witnesses to an overt act of treason: that could be their co-conspirator, and they'd still be guilty.

David, I don't deny that there is a case to be made for treason, but getting a conviction from a jury is another thing entirely. I don't disagree with your disgust at their actions, but after all even protesters give aid and comfort to Saddam. We live in an age where free speech is everything and even spies get to plea bargain so the government can find out exactly what secrets were sold to the enemy. I just don't see a conviction here. But that's my reading of human nature -- not of the law. Hell, Clinton walked because some idiot (Senator and former House manager Lindsey Graham) made the argument that perjury in a civil proceeding wasn't an impeachable offense. It isn't possible to separate the law from politics anymore. I find it depressing.

A conviction may be necessary to execute them, but just being on trial for treason would be a huge inconvenience to put it mildly. These misguided idiots do need to be deterred but personally I don't want to kill them (so call me a bleeding-heart).

Since the human shields are combatants, and Iraqi civilians are not, I would hope that, if our military had to make a choice between targeting an area defended by human shields and an area surrounded by innocent Iraqi civilians, they would choose to spare the lives of the innocent Iraqis.

If that choice is made often enough, the question of whether we should charge Human Shields with treason might never have to be answered.

"even protesters give aid and comfort to Saddam"

Not as far as the law is concerned. There have been cases argued and settled over where the line can be drawn on "aid and comfort," and merely protesting a policy of your government doesn't qualify. The aid and comfort must be material.

Kevin, you're right that merely protesting doesn't qualify, but ANYTHING beyond words that impedes the war effort qualifies. That would include "direct action", any kind of property damage, anything illegal (perhaps even including simply blocking traffic).

Well, maybe the courts have gone farther than I would think the Constitution really supports. As I read the definition of treason in Article III, Section 3, it would seem that the generic blocking of traffic wouldn't qualify, nor generic property damage.

It would have to be something that materially impedes the war effort -- and a defendant could argue that even that doesn't necessarily qualify as either "levying war against (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies."

The "human shields", in any case, are well within the envelope encompassed by both our understandings, Ken.

Kevin, I agree that just blocking traffic would probably not qualify, but it may fall under "giving them aid and comfort". Anything that materially impedes the war effort most certainly qualifies as "adhering to their Enemies" and "aid and comfort" (IMHO).

Once the war starts, the human shields will provide neither aid nor comfort to Saddam. Most will be at sites that we're not planning to target. Those who are at military sites won't affect bombing decisions.

Calling them "traitors" magnifies their importance. And it's not a crime to be clueless.

Sure they will: they provide propaganda. Just as "Lord Haw-Haw" was hanged for broadcasting from Berlin and as Jane Fonda was a traitor for doing much the same from Hanoi, so the same goes for the "human shields." The act doesn't have to completely succeed in order to be treasonous.

Joanne, you're right that calling them "traitors" magnifies their importance, but there are two additional issues:

1) Allowing them (at least the survivors) to get away with it sends a message that there are no consequences to their actions (and for the same reason, it should be made clear up front that any Iraqi soldier who hides behind non-combatants will be held accountable - having no consequences gives no incentive to follow the Geneva Conventions)

2) They will only be at non-target sites until Hussein forces them to target sites. You are absolutely right that they would not affect bombing decisions, but they will then become fodder for anti-American propaganda. And for that, there should also be consequences.

Does anyone remember Ezra Pound or Tokya Rose? Both did what these persons in Iraq are doing: They are providing propoganda for Iraq. No matter how you try to deconstruct it, providing a dangerous enemy of the United States with an opportunity for propoganda is material aid. It's a no-brainer. You cannot even shroud this fact is legal arguments. They're traitors.

As for magnifying them beyond their importance is so deceptive. Those bastards are giving the Iraqi government, a known, sworn and deadly enemy of the United States, a chance for propoganda and their presence has the intention of hampering our war effort.

They are traitors and on their return to the USA should be arrested and tried as traitors.