Should Hasan be charged with treason?
Bret L
>> "If he survives, the Ft. Hood shooter will of course be charged with murder, but it's reasonable to inquire whether treason should also be charged. After all, for a major in the U.S. Army, trained at taxpayer expense in the use of weapons, to shoot 40 unarmed comrades-in-arms would seem like a reasonable example of waging war on the United States.
However, the Constitution's delineation of treason might not cover
this:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. 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. The Congress shall have 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.
What does "levying war" mean? Although "levying" is sometimes today
said to be the same as "waging," that doesn't appear to be the legal
definition. In one of the the treason cases (Bollman) growing out of
the still mysterious Aaron Burr conspiracy, the Chief Justice John
Marshall of the Supreme Court ruled in 1807, "But there must be an
actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a
levying of war." In other words, "levying" means raising a body of
warriors. Therefore, whether Major Hasan plotted solely alone or was
conspiring with others, and if so, did they in some fashion
"assemble," would appear to be relevant.
On the other hand, the second type of treason, "or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" would appear to be an
easier hurdle to leap. The first time the Supreme Court upheld a
treason conviction was in the 1947 Haupt case in which naturalized
citizen Hans Mark Haupt was sentenced to life in prison for sheltering
in his Chicago home his son, a German spy (one of the eight saboteurs
landed by a German sub in a semi-farcical failed infiltration). The
son was convicted by military tribunal and executed. In the father's
case, noted civil libertarian Justice William O. Douglas wrote the
majority opinion upholding the father's conviction, while Justice
Jackson wrote a lonely dissent arguing that the father's intentions
were filial rather than treasonous.
Since the elder Haupt was legally guilty of treason for merely helping
his son, then Hasan's shooting two score American soldiers in cold
blood would appear to be an even better example of "adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." However, that does raise the
issue of who exactly our Enemies are, a question that has been left
rather ambiguous by Congress' refusal to issue a Declaration of War
since 1942."<<
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-hasan-be-charged-with-treason.html