Friday, June 24, 2011

Treason & Support Of Islam


Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
“ 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.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[13]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

To me it would seem that such persons as Major Nidal Hasan (Of Fort Hood infamy), those members of the "Fort Dix Six" who were US Citizens. the ex-Marine recently charged with shooting at the Pentagon, the other two and West Coast Muslims recently arrested before they could execute an armed attack on a military installation were all waging war against the USA or planning to do so. But, they were not so charged nor is it likely that the newer cases will result in that object-lesson and most horrid of crimes.

Why? Could it be that Muslims have become "more equal than others" (Like the pigs in "Animal Farm)? Or, could it be that active prosecution of treason cases would place at risk so many editors, publishers, politicians, professors and such persons.
More specially, I note that it has been clearly demonstrated-and-proved that most contributions to "islamic charities" end up in the hands of terrorists who are, also in fact, involved in active military "jihad" against the Armed Forces of the USA. Such actions meet the requirements of the Constitution and above-reported court case to warrant charges-of and convictions-for treason.

No comments: