Dan Riehl responds to my post from yesterday regarding his statement that Democrats are traitors.

I noted yesterday that the penalty for treason death, Dan disputed that in his post. For the sake of the record, here’s 18 U.S.C. 2381 which defines treason and the legal consequences for its commission (US CODE: Title 18,2381. Treason):

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.

So, I suppose it depends on how you want to define the statement. The penalty for treason is, in fact, death, althought it can be a lesser punishment.

If we step back from the rhetorical ledge for a moment and even say that treasonous acts require a jail stay of at least five years, a $10,000+ fine, and the inability to serve in the US government, then there are still some serious problems to be associated with stating that there are Democrats who are guilty of treason.

A main problem here with the logic is the equating of harsh criticism of the administration with giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy. If we are going to say that once hostilities break out that no one is allowed to say anything against the US government that might be construed as useful to the enemy in that conflict, then we have wandered into extremely dangerous territory.

Dan cites, in his post, some outrageous things that were said by Al Gore in his “he betrayed this country” speech. While Gore has every right to state his opinion, I thought at the time that that approach to the situation was counter productive, just I think all this treason talk over the last few days is countrproductive.

Dan also cites statements made by Murtha and Kerry that were, in my mind, irresponsible. He also include Jimmy Carter in his list.

On the other hand, there are still very grave questions that exist regarding Haditha and other incidences in Iraq. As such, it isn’t as if there weren’t reasons for the issues to be raised. Even if the we stipulate for the sake of argument that the statements in question were utter nonsense, I fail to see how they could be consider treasonous by any reasonable definition.

Ultimately, Dan’s argue boils down to this:

Let the individuals who would seek to defend the Democrat’s honor in this regard answer me this - how is it that such statements as displayed above can be seen as anything other than injurious to our nation during a time of war? And as that phrase itself is included in the very definition of treason, why is it so wrong, or dangerous to simply call them what they are? (emphasis his)

If we are going to start branding people as traitors because they make remarks that are hyperbolic and outrageous during a time of conflict abroad, then we had better start expanding Guantanamo.

Really: this is a wholly unproductive path to go down.