I don’t believe in the concept of treason.
The term has been flung around so often to describe anything, anyone or any action that may be a threat to, or enemy of the state, to/of those who are in power, and to/of those who are vying for political power.
Republicans use the “treason” word against Pelosi, Democrats use it against Bush/Cheney/Rove/etc. It’s all about slinging mud on an individual because he or she doesn’t toe a party line.
I’m rather tired of the belief that someone can pose that much of a threat to the population that he/she should be dragged to court as a criminal. I thought we were out of the Cold War?
trea·son/ˈtrizən/[tree-zuhn]–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
To an extent treason could be diffucult to define in this country because the people are the sovereign and are split into two major factions so treasonous behavior in the eyes of some may not be in the eyes of others.
Exactly.
It’s being treated with such flexible reinterpretations in order to fit personal or political beefs.
But that makes me wonder: do those who act towards the dictionary definition of treason (overthrow a government that they don’t like) really have a personal beef against those in power?
If so, then that makes their act of treason no less legitimate than the much-vaunted rebellion that became the Revolutionary War, as the American rebels acted in their own best interest and for a purpose that was diametrically opposed to the British national self-interest.
So both sides are “right” and “wrong” at the same time, as if the morality of their cause really matters in the greater scheme of things.
The revolution was a little bit different in that the rebels were trying to break away from a government and not really overthrow one completely. Although the same could be said for the South, they just didn’t win. To me to really be treasonous one would have to be committing a true crime against the state such as selling secrets to the enemy, or making sure we lose battles, or trying to kill important officials for the purpose of disrupting things, or acting in a contrary manner to the best interest of the country on a grave level not just being a jerk.
Also to me there is a difference between rebels and foreign powers. Helping a rebel in a country doesn’t scream treason as much as helping a foreign invader. IE The Vichy French government may have acted in a treasonous manner, Alabama did not.