The Glade 4.0

He wasn't considered an "abominable traitor" although he did receive some criticism, which ended after the Senate hearing on the matter. Jessica Lynch is not in any way equivalent; she was captured after losing consciousness, and she was not in a position of sensitivity as Powers was.

Events surrounding her capture also took quite a bit of distortion, because the narrative of a young female soldier fighting until she ran out of ammunition played better in the narrative of "women can do combat just as well as men can!" Whether they can or not, the need to push it forward to avoid accusations of sexism drove that train.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Khross - You're moving the goalposts, but if you want to drop the treason claim in favor of an Espionage Act violation, that's fine. I don't have time to get into it, but while the plain text of the Espionage Act is ridiculously vague and overbroad, there is simply no way that Congress intended or a court would hold that a President has violated it by exercising his judgment as CinC and agreeing to disclose classified information in the context of an arms negotiation. It's not a question of the President being immune to the laws of the land; it's a question of applying those laws with a modicum of common sense.

As for US v. Nixon, you referred to it as a "U.S. Government suit...about a few executive orders he signed", and summarized the holding as being that "the President [is] able to be sued by other parts of the U.S. government [and] that the executive orders of the president and the executive actions he takes in enforcing law through his subordinate agencies are subject to judicial review." Calling it a "U.S. Government suit" elides the massive difference between enforcement of a subpoena issued by an officer within the Executive Branch and a lawsuit filed by Congress, and as I said, the holding addressed the issue of executive privilege and subpoenas for information, not judicial review of his execution/enforcement of the laws.

I mean, don't get me wrong - US v. Nixon was hugely important for limiting the immunity of the President, as you said. It's just not analogous to the current situation wherein the House is suing the President over an alleged failure to faithfully execute a law.

Obama disclosed an ally's sensitive information to a non-enemy, to the perceived benefit of the US in negotiations.

This is not treason.

Khross: Suppose for a second that instead of trading the nuclear information to Russia, Obama had instead traded it to France for some other political or economic goal. Is it still treason? Well, since Russia is not an enemy, what's the difference?

RangerDave:

I'm not moving the goalposts. The Rosenbergs were considered traitors by the Justice system that convicted them. The presiding Justice called their actions treason in his sentencing and decision statements, in point of fact. Consequently, I pointed out that the discussion between Diamondeye is over the specific criminality of Obama's actions. We can debate, on both sides of this issue, whether or not his actions constitute treason and why. What's not up for debate is that these actions were criminal. Beyond that, the bulk of your argument is an intentional fallacy. You are ascribing motive to Congress to avoid applying the law as it was written and stands.

Arathain:

Barack Obama violated domestic law, international agreements, treaties, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by violating said treaties, and several of his sworn duties and responsibilities.

Xequecal:

He would be guilty of espionage for providing such information to France. And, technically, Russia became an enemy state as soon as it used military force to transgress Ukraine's borders. While NATO, particularly the US side of NATO, may possess no intent to honor our agreements with Ukraine, some agreements were already in place. It's very fortunate for those of you wanting to excuse his actions that the United States, particularly since Obama took office, has become notorious for shunning mutual defense obligations.

_________________

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that legislative intent is not a factor to be considered when performing legal analysis?

You haven't read the decision in a long time, I take it. Burger specifically mentions that Congress, the Judiciary, and subordinate Executive Agencies ALL possess the power to sue the President directly in the decision. Although, to be fair, that was perhaps the single most collaborative decision document every drafted by the Court. That said, the Supreme Court claimed, for the judiciary, the power of sole determination over what can and cannot be protected by Executive privilege. The President is subject to judicial review and other judiciary scrutiny independently of impeachment proceedings. The House suing the President isn't unprecedented, precisely because U.S. v Nixon opened that door. It speaks of extreme ignorance on the part of Obama and his handlers to be so dismissive about the suit and its allowability.

_________________

Should not be a factor, but almost assuredly is in this day and age.

But, then, U.S. v Nixon also removed a lot of the President's shielding from criminal investigation and prosecution, too.

_________________

None of which constitutes treason.

All of which constitutes treason when he's selling NATO nuclear secrets to the Russians for free. We've executed people for less. Russia is considered a hostile state and several of their statutory allies are statutory enemies of the United States.

_________________

Russia "is considered a hostile state" by whom? That's something that's up to... the President to determine, or Congress if they choose to declare war or pass a law in that regard. Also, I don't know what members of their present defensive alliance are "Statutory enemies" since Iran is the only potential candidate in that category, and they're exactly that - a potential candidate.

Furthermore, the fact is that the President does, fundamentally, have the power to choose to classify or declassify information and reveal it to other nations at his discretion. The agencies that determine classifications work for the Executive branch; he may choose to override their decisions. It is not a matter of the President having special privileges, it's a matter of him being within his authority to do so.

The argument that he violated the NATO treaty is on much stronger ground, since the President clearly does not have the power to dictate to other nations how their information shall be handled, but violating a treaty is not treason. It is weakened further by the fact that, since Trident missiles are shared in a pool with Great Britain, that the information was not solely theirs to begin with.

Finally, treason doesn't just mean doing something that's potentially beneficial to an enemy; it means actively giving them aid and comfort with proper mens rea. Attempting to outmaneuver an enemy (or anyone else, for that matter) politically by giving them certain benefits in the hopes of putting them at a disadvantage politically in other ways is not the same as giving them aid and comfort. Obama is by no means adroit in such matters, but ineptitude is not unConstitutional.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

There are details you and I both know that we're not discussing in the thread for obvious reasons. As I said, whether or not his actions constitute treason is a debatable position. I'm aware of that; hence, I'm willing to have a meaningful back and forth on that part.

Other respondents aren't even considering the big scale picture, and one poster's arguments amount to -- this is just within the scope of Presidential discretion. That argument takes us back to U.S. v Nixon, which says "Presidential discretion" is subject to judicial review.

_________________

Fair enough.



I think part of the problem here is that the matter we're debating - release of U.K. Trident information - is not, unless I'm mistaken, an issue in the lawsuit, and even if it is I have trouble imagining it's anything other than a side matter. Thus, we're sort of off on a tangent. The President's powers in terms of dealing with other countries are much more extensive than his powers in relation to enforcing domestic law, and with good reason - other countries get a vote in what happens internationally. Domestically, his powers should be, and are, much more restricted.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."