From: bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:39:18 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <92328.1352222893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.142402.4242@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, hbb@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
>(harlan.b.braude) says:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov21.033922.27579@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M.
>>Solovay) writes:
>>>I don't know the legal definition, but my dictionary's first
>>>definition is
>>>
>>>   trea.son n  \'trez-*n\
>>>      1 : the betrayal of a trust : PERFIDY,
>>>          TREACHERY
>>Treason is also a legal term and I think it's the only crime mentioned
>>in the constitution. The legal definition, I've been told, specifically
>>addresses aiding an enemy of the US. There have been countries that have
>>been designated enemies of the US, but Israel is not among them.
>>
>Rather than guess, I suggest someone look it up in a legal dictionary.
>Obviously the legal definition was good enough for a judge.

I have just looked up TREASON in my Barron's Law Dictionary, by Steven H.
Gifis. (page 486-487)

TREASON:  the crime of "adhering to the enemy and rendering him aid and
comfort."  325 U.S. 1.  Under the U.S. Constitution, treason may only
consist of levying war against the United States or adhering to its
enemies and giving them aid and comfort, and a person may only be 
convicted of treason upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same
overt act or on a confession in open court.  U.S. Constitution, Art. 3,
Sec. 3, Cl. 1.  While Congress may punish the person convicted of treason,
it may not "work corruption of blood" or forfeiture except during the
life of the person attainted.  U.S. Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 3, Cl. 2.

It then goes on to give a slightly different definition for England.
Corruption of blood means their blood line is corrupted and thus they
may not pass their property on to their heirs when they die.  This goes
back to feudal times.

It would, on the surface, seem to indicate that Pollard was not guilty of
treason, since it specifically refers to aiding the "enemy."  However, we
must define enemy.  For example, is Japan the enemy of the United States?
Most would answer no, but of course during World War II is most surely
was.  So clearly a country can be an enemy and then not be.  Similarly,
a countries can temporarily become enemies, for example France and England
for most of their history have had periods of friendship and enmity.
I would therefore argue that, (despite my favor for Israel) that when
Israel was acquiring the information that it did from Pollard, Israel was
behaving as an enemy, since clearly it was attempting to deceive and
subvert the American government and thereby its people.  Thus, it is
possible that Pollard could have committed the crime of treason.

Brian E. Foont
bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.ede

My opinions are my own, but you may share them.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:20739 soc.culture.turkish:11930 talk.politics.mideast:22406 talk.politics.soviet:9092 soc.culture.greek:10818 soc.culture.europe:9746 soc.culture.soviet:10166 soc.rights.human:4280 soc.culture.yugoslavia:9670