Why Isn't Treason Called Treason Anymore?
Lynne Stewart, who is falsely called a civil rights lawyer received 2 ½ years for aiding and abetting terrorism. In truth she is guilty of treason according to the definition of the U.S. Constitution since she has aided and abetted an enemy of the United States. That is not the charge to prosecutor chose to bring against her for their own reasons. The constitutional definition of treason is:
Ms. Steward has defended other radicals and may well be an anarchist who is only out to destroy the government by any means as an anarchist will ally with anyone who they believe will destroy the current government. She has chosen to defend the “civil rights” of Black Panthers, Anti war radicals, and terrorist. This may be a legitimate legal enterprise as everyone deserves a fair trial but her conduct in aiding and abetting terrorist make me doubt her goal was to secure a fair trial for her clients and the type of client she prefers to serve makes me doubt she is particular to any one of their ideologies except the general anti American government aspect.
The anarchistic idea of civil rights extend the gambit from anything goes to the libertarian idea that you can do anything as long as you do not bring harm to a non consenting human being. On the other hand the idea of civil rights as adhered to by our Founders is that you had absolute freedom to do anything as long as it did not harm any living creature. They considered libertine behavior of any type to be harmful. They wrote this into the U.S. Declaration of Independence by stating it is a governments job to secure the natural rights of the people and if they become destructive of those rights then it is the right of the people to abolish the government. It also mentions that the People may chose to tolerate the governments violation of those rights. Either active or negligent violation of those rights is considered being destructive of them.
The 2 ½ year sentence is by far too light. The reason given is her age of 67 years old and the fact she was diagnosed with breast cancer and would most likely die in prison if she received the 30 years that the prosecutors asked for. The also insist that he action to not appear to have violence as it’s end. Those mitigating circumstances are mostly foolish since she was well aware of her age and should have been well aware her actions were criminal when she chose to purchase the sentence by committing what amounts to treason. The definition of treason certainly does not differentiate between an action leading to violence and one that does not and from all I know neither does the law the prosecutors held against her. Still since the general idea is the more serious the crime the greater the sentence she should not of received the maximum sentence but the 2 ½ years she received is ridiculous. The fact she has breast cancer is a sad event but should not be considered a mitigating circumstance as her bad luck doe not excuse her conduct. If the breast cancer kills or significantly maims her I might consider granting her parole under the idea that she has received divine justice and the justice of man is unneeded. That is something the judge could have considered in her sentence.
A large aggravated circumstance is that she is a lawyer and an officer of the court and so held to a higher standard. In addition she took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic which she chose to break. This of course makes her guilty of oath breaking which may be considered perjury which is a crime that could have given her the 2 ½ year sentence by itself.
The judge was appointed by Clinton and this point should be irrelevant but evidence shows that judges are prone to legislate from the bench. From District Judge John G. Koeltl words that Ms. Stewart has presented a great service to her country I would question his lack of bias in the case. The solution to this is to allow both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to appeal the sentence. This will not eliminate politics but it will bring the opinions of more judges into play and hopefully eliminate the most extreme cases. This is justified by the U.S. Constitution since everyone whether they are the victim or the perpetrator is to be treated equally under the law and the prosecutor’s job is to represent the victim as well as the people his/her jurisdiction.
My source about Lynne Stewart’s sentence here.
U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3. 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.
Ms. Steward has defended other radicals and may well be an anarchist who is only out to destroy the government by any means as an anarchist will ally with anyone who they believe will destroy the current government. She has chosen to defend the “civil rights” of Black Panthers, Anti war radicals, and terrorist. This may be a legitimate legal enterprise as everyone deserves a fair trial but her conduct in aiding and abetting terrorist make me doubt her goal was to secure a fair trial for her clients and the type of client she prefers to serve makes me doubt she is particular to any one of their ideologies except the general anti American government aspect.
The anarchistic idea of civil rights extend the gambit from anything goes to the libertarian idea that you can do anything as long as you do not bring harm to a non consenting human being. On the other hand the idea of civil rights as adhered to by our Founders is that you had absolute freedom to do anything as long as it did not harm any living creature. They considered libertine behavior of any type to be harmful. They wrote this into the U.S. Declaration of Independence by stating it is a governments job to secure the natural rights of the people and if they become destructive of those rights then it is the right of the people to abolish the government. It also mentions that the People may chose to tolerate the governments violation of those rights. Either active or negligent violation of those rights is considered being destructive of them.
The 2 ½ year sentence is by far too light. The reason given is her age of 67 years old and the fact she was diagnosed with breast cancer and would most likely die in prison if she received the 30 years that the prosecutors asked for. The also insist that he action to not appear to have violence as it’s end. Those mitigating circumstances are mostly foolish since she was well aware of her age and should have been well aware her actions were criminal when she chose to purchase the sentence by committing what amounts to treason. The definition of treason certainly does not differentiate between an action leading to violence and one that does not and from all I know neither does the law the prosecutors held against her. Still since the general idea is the more serious the crime the greater the sentence she should not of received the maximum sentence but the 2 ½ years she received is ridiculous. The fact she has breast cancer is a sad event but should not be considered a mitigating circumstance as her bad luck doe not excuse her conduct. If the breast cancer kills or significantly maims her I might consider granting her parole under the idea that she has received divine justice and the justice of man is unneeded. That is something the judge could have considered in her sentence.
A large aggravated circumstance is that she is a lawyer and an officer of the court and so held to a higher standard. In addition she took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic which she chose to break. This of course makes her guilty of oath breaking which may be considered perjury which is a crime that could have given her the 2 ½ year sentence by itself.
The judge was appointed by Clinton and this point should be irrelevant but evidence shows that judges are prone to legislate from the bench. From District Judge John G. Koeltl words that Ms. Stewart has presented a great service to her country I would question his lack of bias in the case. The solution to this is to allow both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to appeal the sentence. This will not eliminate politics but it will bring the opinions of more judges into play and hopefully eliminate the most extreme cases. This is justified by the U.S. Constitution since everyone whether they are the victim or the perpetrator is to be treated equally under the law and the prosecutor’s job is to represent the victim as well as the people his/her jurisdiction.
My source about Lynne Stewart’s sentence here.
posted by Kerwin | 10:13 PM
3 Comments:
I've been asking this question for at least 2 years now. Treason is committed all over the place in this country, and no one prosecutes. The NY Times, Randi Rhodes, and a whole bunch of others should have been tried for treason. Why is Jane Fonda still alive after her treason during Vietnam? I've never been able to understand our unwillingness to recognize it.
I have heard that one reason is that the federal courts have further defined it than the U.S. Constitution and it is always possible Congress did also. The concern from what I have heard is that treason is a serious offense and they do not want to slap it on just anyone who disagrees with the government. I think that they have gone to far the other way.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home