Ok guys they caught the classified document leaker.
If you had a say,what punishment?
If you had a say,what punishment?
Punishment for the classified document leaker
- Thread starter Old Rooster
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
SSS
Public execution , death by stoning .
A lawyer that specializes in that kind of law has this to say about Treason:
Bryan Caldwell
Retired Attorney, Professor of Constitutional Law Author has 6.1K answers and 10.8M answer views4y
Today, treason prosecutions are very unlikely. Here's much of an answer I've previously submitted to a similar question:
Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines not only the crime of treason, but the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction.
But, you are unlikely, now or in the future, to see anyone charged with treason. There hasn't been a treason prosecution in the U.S. since the aftermath of WWII. Here's why.
Any act that would constitute treason would also be a violation of federal statutes, most likely the Espionage Act. Any crime other than treason can be proven by presenting a variety of evidence that convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that every element of the offense was committed by the defendant.
Because treason is unique among crimes and can only be proven by confession in open court or by two witness to the same overt act, it is harder to prove than any other crime. A violation of any other crime can be proven by the testimony of a single witness - treason can not. A violation of any other crime can be proven by circumstantial evidence - treason can not.
The penalties for violation of the Espionage Act are just as severe as those for treason - up to and including the death penalty.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for providing atomic weapons information to the Soviets, but they weren't even charged with treason. They were convicted of violating the Espionage Act. All the names we connect with recent traitorous acts, Aldritch Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker, Jr., and others, were convicted of violating the Espionage Act - not treason.
Bryan Caldwell
Retired Attorney, Professor of Constitutional Law Author has 6.1K answers and 10.8M answer views4y
Today, treason prosecutions are very unlikely. Here's much of an answer I've previously submitted to a similar question:
Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines not only the crime of treason, but the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction.
But, you are unlikely, now or in the future, to see anyone charged with treason. There hasn't been a treason prosecution in the U.S. since the aftermath of WWII. Here's why.
Any act that would constitute treason would also be a violation of federal statutes, most likely the Espionage Act. Any crime other than treason can be proven by presenting a variety of evidence that convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that every element of the offense was committed by the defendant.
Because treason is unique among crimes and can only be proven by confession in open court or by two witness to the same overt act, it is harder to prove than any other crime. A violation of any other crime can be proven by the testimony of a single witness - treason can not. A violation of any other crime can be proven by circumstantial evidence - treason can not.
The penalties for violation of the Espionage Act are just as severe as those for treason - up to and including the death penalty.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for providing atomic weapons information to the Soviets, but they weren't even charged with treason. They were convicted of violating the Espionage Act. All the names we connect with recent traitorous acts, Aldritch Ames, Robert Hanssen, John Walker, Jr., and others, were convicted of violating the Espionage Act - not treason.
No way does he get sent home with no lunch!
Wasn't someone shot for treason?Can't remember.
Wasn't someone shot for treason?Can't remember.
Distraction is a definite possibility with this administration. The majority of the American public will likely gobble it down while the POTUS shuffles the walnut shells on the table in an attempt to disguise is next "distraction".
dfanonymous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,267
If you want death, you'll have to go back and get Hillary, find Snowden, retry "Chelsea" Manning, find out who in the Obama admin leaked the 2010 Pakistan/Afghan leaks, etc etc.
Meanwhile there are plenty of things "classified" that sit for 50+ years that literally don't need any classification or are classified simply as "official" that might be in some political actors possession. If anyone was in the military that has dealt with documents or computers as such. Many things are considered restricted…that don't need to be, and you may have no idea. I'm talking in general, and not about this recent thing.
Meanwhile there are plenty of things "classified" that sit for 50+ years that literally don't need any classification or are classified simply as "official" that might be in some political actors possession. If anyone was in the military that has dealt with documents or computers as such. Many things are considered restricted…that don't need to be, and you may have no idea. I'm talking in general, and not about this recent thing.
Last edited:
My son writes computer programs and I am the opposite,I know very little about computers but can't they do something to provide an extra layer of protection from classified information leaks?
It does us good to reflect on what motivates our beliefs. If it's as shallow as our team not being in administration, we are hoodwinking & diminishing ourselves. There is no doubt in my mind the guy is guilty if they got the right guy. It is no manufactured distraction. I've been into enough intelligence and investigative stuff to know basically what's going on. Serious business, folks. And I don't care if it's our favorite president - the rules have to apply to everyone the same if we are men of integrity and values. Talk about distractions? Your favorite president is a class act at those.
Too much emotional bias gets projected into chat forums like this, and everyone pours into and drinks out of the same dirty pot of soup. More smoke than light is the result. It's a hole to no-where. Mob-rule never ends well. Let's be less hasty and more reflective, eh? 
Last edited:
Not really in cases like this that involve actual printed papers. Probably relook at security clearances. Some folks start good and go bad for whatever reason. Pretty nigh impossible to have 100% protection from exploitation in the world of human nature.
sea2summit
Well-Known Member
Why not? There is no minimum age for a clearance and there's hundreds if not thousands of jobs that require very high levels of clearance from new soldiers. You're average infantryman requires an interim secret clearance to be in most modern infantry vehicles.
