‘Tis the SEASON for TREASON - or is it SEDITION?

Lawfully Speaking Vol. III, Issue No. 8
A Periodic Internet Political Column
Written by William H. Huff

According to Mr. Bartlett of quote-gathering fame, Sir John Harrington once stated, "Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

While ‘U.S. Authorities’ try to decide what to do with John Walker, a ‘Taliban fighter’ of ‘Native [not aboriginal]’ American descent, we hear little in the major media regarding the Constitutional Paradox that is staring us in the face: Without a lawful war, how can you prosecute ‘Treason’ lawfully speaking?

When you ‘need’ a war, and you are in a terrible rush, there may be some loose ends. Perhaps John Walker’s dilemma will provide us with yet another object lesson from those who continue to try finding new and creative ways around our Constitution. It is my hope that Americans will be impressed once again with our desperate need to study and competently enforce our Constitution BEFORE we suffer ultimate national embarrassment.

Here we see an example of a man, who, for whatever reason, decided his allegiance was to the cause of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Had he been fighting with them against the Russians I doubt that we would ever know his name. Had he been fighting somewhere else for some clandestine operation of the CIA, again, he would remain anonymous [probably for reasons of ‘national security’]. Ironically, we might also know him had he distinguished himself as Michael New by refusing to go along with the UN-American agenda of the UN - an agenda that seems to be required only when it suits the best purposes of the global elite or the most powerful military nations as it pleases them. Michael had to be punished for allegiance to the Constitution. Now a way to punish Walker must be devised without revealing not only contempt for the Constitution but also carefully skirting issues of alleged international law and perhaps the Geneva Conventions as well.

If Michael New’s case is a precedent, one can be punished for loyalty to the Constitution. Those military tribunals are certainly efficient aren’t they?

When government servants deliberately try to trash the Constitution throughout their entire Criminal careers it is even more frustrating to hear them quibbling over nuances of law under the Constitution. Is ‘Treason’ only what it was understood to be when the Constitution was ratified, or is it an elastic thing that can be stretched around John Walker’s neck? Is Walker a prisoner of war, or is he an undeclared prisoner of an undeclared war? If Walker cannot be guilty of ‘Treason’ since no war was lawfully declared, can he be punished, or even put to death, under some new law that they make up in order to avoid embarrassing themselves over their Constitutional negligence? And if under some new law, his attorneys, it must be hoped, would seize upon another rusty old Constitutional principle: the prohibition of an ex post facto law. - Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3.

Then again, a really clever prosecuting attorney might insist that Walker was outside of all Constitutional protections because he was fighting in a jurisdiction outside of the 50 States, and, in fact, in a territory where there was arguably no lawful government or court system. This approach could be further complicated by the fact that the U.S. military was operating under similar circumstances without a Lawful Declaration of War. Where did they get their jurisdiction? Of course, the U.S. military, especially at the highest levels, and the entire Bush family, might not want to push the case into the so-called World Court in The Hague as this precedent could ultimately result in their being indicted by the same court at some point in the future when the worst of their [alleged] unlawful acts are ‘outed.’ A primary element of lawful jurisdiction is geographic location. Ask any honest judge or consult a law dictionary. They have not begun to answer the other jurisdictional requirements of subject matter, venue, and whether or not such and such a court can assert jurisdiction with regard to the person of the accused. All of these complicated issues might be used by either side in this case.

In keeping with the Harrington quote above, it almost goes without saying, that, no one in the U.S. military or the White House should ever be tried for anything. After all, they ‘won,’ the ‘war’ didn’t they? ‘Winners’ cannot commit ‘war crimes.’ Everyone ‘knows’ that - unless it is brought up at some future time when they have become ‘vulnerable.’ Bill Clinton’s lawyers could make up a new list of foolish assertions for their defence in any case.

The Catch 22?

If Walker is not guilty of Treason, perhaps President Bush is guilty of placing our military men in harm’s way without a Lawful Declaration of War, which I am inclined to believe could rise to the level of a Felony crime with regard to actual losses of American lives. But of course I am not a clever government attorney. Nevertheless it will be marvelous to see how they work this out. It’s a good thing for them the major media couldn’t care less about the law or the Constitution - or for honest journalism for that matter.

With Bush’s popularity on the rise we see that famous quote certified once more. The redefined ‘Treason’ of Walker must not be allowed to prosper while the possible Felonies of the ‘Commander in Chief’ must be re-defined as noble acts. All the while Americans will be asked to define away their fundamental God-given unalienable rights in exchange for the latest definition of ‘government protection.’

I think the very least the Bush family can do in the wake of this ‘terrible humanitarian tragedy’ is to make sure a huge oil pipeline gets installed in Afghanistan as soon as possible, with the help of the Cheney family and other ‘friends of the Afghan people’ of course. Maybe we can get our new ‘Patriot Czar,’ the ubiquitous William Bennett, to help set up the new Afghan free public education system. I wonder what the Afghanis think of ‘Czars.’ I have to suppose many Americans are not at all concerned over the illusion of excessive authority conveyed by calling a government servant a ‘Czar.’ The word does derive from ‘Caesar.’ Shall we have a ‘Patriot Nero?’ Does Bennett play the Fiddle?

What is ‘Treason?’

According to the United States Code in Title 18 at Section 2381