Some dare call it treason, but they shouldn’t
Having been called a traitor twice yesterday morning for something I posted on Facebook, I rise to my own defense. And, what may be more surprising, to the defense of Donald Trump.
Lately people have been bandying about the words “traitor” and “treason” without much thought. They imagine that espionage or even disloyalty to this country, in and of themselves, constitute treason. And, it turns out, they are wrong.
To avoid this dangerous confusion — treason is often a capital offense — the framers of the U.S. constitution went to the trouble of defining the word in that very document.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
For the framers, it was important to be clear about this in order to curtail the abuse of authority made possible by the arbitrariness with which people had been charged with treason under monarchs.
Although the definition of treason in the constitution is a short one, it merits some unpacking. The phrase “adhering to their enemies” could be replaced by “joining with their enemies” to better suit modern ears. This refers to such things as close collaboration or pledges of allegiance.
But it is the word “enemies” itself that is the primary source of misunderstanding today. There is a tendency for us to equate it with the word “adversaries.” But that is not the meaning intended by the framers. What they meant by “enemies” is specifically those countries with whom we were involved in open hostilities.
This interpretation is supported by a look at American legal history. Since the Civil War, with one exception having to do with treason against the State of West Virginia, only people working in league with a foreign power with which we were engaged in a shooting war have been convicted of treason. The most recent include people who collaborated with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany during World War II. Think Mildred Gillars, better known as Axis Sally, or Martin James Monti, a United States Army Air Forces pilot, who defected to the Waffen SS in 1944.
More to the point today given our relationship with Russia, none of the Cold-War-era American citizens who were caught as Soviet spies was ever charged with, much less convicted of, treason. They were, by and large, prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act or some similar law.
That this extended period of confrontation with America’s formidable geopolitical adversary, the Soviet Union, did not result in anyone being put on trial for treason speaks to the prudence with which the word “treason” has been used. We should continue to abide by that kind of careful use of the word today.
This brings me to the question of Donald Trump and the much ballyhooed charges of treason leveled against him having to do with his divulging of “code word” classified information to Russian diplomats during a meeting at the Oval Office last month or with colluding with Russia to win last November’s presidential election.
As argued above, whatever Trump’s actions were, they cannot be called treason simply because Russia is not our enemy, at least not in the sense of that word required by the constitution.
Trump’s Oval Office error was not his sharing classified information with Russian diplomats. (The United States is engaged in routine exchanges of secret information with Russia in support of what are regarded as mutual security interests.) His error was in getting so involved in boasting about having “great intel” that he let slip the identity of an ally in a way that placed their intelligence operations and operatives at risk. That that preening on Trump’s part constitutes a blunder of the highest order is beyond question; that it qualifies as espionage, much less treason, is unfounded.
The reason that these baseless accusations of treason bother me so much is that they strike close to home. As a long-time advocate for human rights and for anti-war causes over a period of decades, I have participated in a large number of public vigils and protests. As a result, I have been called out as a traitor more times than I would like to recall. My experience on Facebook yesterday was only the latest round of being subject to that mischaracterization.
After experiencing this in my early years as an activist, I began to appreciate the label “traitor” for what it was: a dog-whistle insult employed by people who disagreed with my politics, but who couldn’t formulate a clear argument expressing their opposition.
It pains me that the left is now relying on these very same dog-whistle tactics to score points against their political opponents. And I, for one, am not interested in becoming party to a pissing contest to determine which side of the red-blue divide in this country is more patriotic.
If, between Trump’s reprehensible character and disastrous policies, you can’t find good grounds to oppose him, then I would suggest you are out of luck. Trump is an ignoramus and a narcissist and a thug. He is, without a doubt, unfit to serve as President of the United States. But he is not a traitor. And, if you want a revolution based on an charge of treason against him, you can count me out.
