The American Secretary of Homeland Security — defined treason by way of inapplicable example — demonstrating (again) how autocratically inclined American leadership is

02 June 2017

Theme — these "damn" generals, militarists, authoritarians, and Freedom-crushers are getting tiresome

Here's another example from the Modern American Deluge of these types.

Defending Liberty by killing it is a good idea, Secretary Kelly insists

American leadership seems to preponderantly favor impressionistically inclined people, who will do almost anything to avoid thinking in rationally minded ways.

To wit the United States' current Secretary of Homeland Security, former Marine Corps General John F. Kelly.

Kelly showed up at NBC's Meet the Press. Moderator Chuck Todd brought up the issue of British Prime Minister May's irritation with the United States, regarding its leaks of her government's Manchester bombing investigation:

CHUCK TODD: Did British Prime Minister Theresa May have a point when she complained to the United States about leaks?

SEC. JOHN KELLY: She did.

CHUCK TODD: She did. It did come from our side.

SEC. JOHN KELLY: I don't know where the leak came from. But I will tell you this, as I always do in cases like this, I immediately called my counterpart in the UK. And after offering my condolences about the attack - and unbelievably the third time in 120 days I've done that; I've called the minister and offered my condolences.

She immediately brought this topic up. And, if it came from the United States, it's totally unacceptable. And I don't know why people do these kind of things, but it's borderline, if not over the line, of treason.

CHUCK TODD: Do you plan - you call - you believe it's treason, to leak some of this stuff, you believe that's treason?

SEC. JOHN KELLY: I do believe it is.

The evidence consisted of — (well) not much

From the New York Times:

British officials have blamed leaks for reports in the American news media revealing the name of the Manchester bomber before the British authorities were ready to do so, and for disclosing certain details of the investigation, including forensic photographs of the crime scene.

Given the circumstances, Kelly's view of treason is dangerously broad

Its breadth would extinguish the First Amendment and virtually all public knowledge of Government doings, if applied under the circumstances that Kelly seems to wish.

Let's "do" some definitions to see why.

The US Constitution defines treason

Article III § 3 of the United States Constitution says that:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

And Justicia.com defines "aid and comfort" in the following way — using US Supreme Court precedent:

The Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947 in Haupt v. United States. [See 330 U.S. 631 (1947)]

Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason—defendant’s harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant—were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said:

“No matter whether young Haupt’s mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him. In the light of this mission and his instructions, they were more than casually useful; they were aids in steps essential to his design for treason. If proof be added that the defendant knew of his son’s instruction, preparation and plans, the purpose to aid and comfort the enemy becomes clear.” [330 U.S. 631 (at pages 635-636]

Let's apply these definitions the way that Secretary Kelly should have

It would be ludicrous to presume that a US security employee (or contractor) — one who was privy to facts uncovered by the British investigation — was making "war" on the United States by leaking the material the New York Times reported.

It is also a very long stretch to assume that such a person was trying to aid generic terrorists, in some nebulous way, by leaking the British investigation's progress:

Why, for example, assume on the basis of no evidence that Kelly's generically phantom Enemies of the State were tuned into the American press?

Why also presuppose that our allegedly loose American lips were doing anything other than keeping traveling Americans (especially) apprised of possibly pertinent safety facts?

And why jump to the even more strenuously unlikely conclusion that these leaks provided anyone with anything substantial enough to constitute "aid" of even the most minimal kind?

Even at his most reduced for-instance-case, why would Secretary Kelly assume that anything that only irritates the previously friendly British-USA relationship is enough to comfort America's enemies, according to the Constitution's clearly limiting intent?

Kelly's bent is toward an autocrat's heavy handedness — "do it 'cause I say so"

When Chuck Todd gave the General a way to modulate his grossly exaggerated definition of treason, Kelly refused to back off. Because for "these guys" evidently, anything "you" do that they don't like constitutes war on the nation, or close to it.

In essence, our General Officer royalty seem to have taken upon themselves the tasks of:

defining the Nation

determining what constitutes its well-being

and

deciding and judging

what is (and is not) acceptable citizen and resident behavior.

The moral? — We have too many blathering dictator wannabes in high American office

How about promoting people who really (not pretend) believe in:

(a) stoutly protecting Liberty

(b) enforcing government transparency

and

Authoritarian personalities need not apply.

If "you" cannot fiercely emulate George Washington's declination of power — and are too stone-headed to recognize the fine example that he set — stay home and shout "your" Constitution-defying stupidities from the sidelines.

PeteFree.com

The American Secretary of Homeland Security — defined treason by way of inapplicable example — demonstrating (again) how autocratically inclined American leadership is