Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:23:46 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jonathan Pollard...
 <1992Nov23.142402.4242@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
 <92328.1352222893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1992Nov23.193918.14313@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>

In article <1992Nov23.193918.14313@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
bfoo_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Brian E. Foont) says:
>
>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


It seems Pollard was never charged with treason but with espionage, thus
arguing he is not guilty of treason is a strawman argument. It is like
defending someone accused of rape by proving he never murdered anyone.



I'm sorry, I am unable to execute the delete function from this terminal.

>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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish