Treason?

I don't usually go for the wartalk here (which is what I always say right before I launch into the wartalk). If you've checked the news recently you probably saw this about Bush authorizing covert action to destabilize Iran.

The usual cadre of right wingers are busy wadding their panties into a bunch, and not wholly without cause. Left wingers use it as more evidence for eeeeevil Bush (I know this because I briefly perused a few sites, therefore I know all). I won't link to either side, but I'm not going to say I don't care which side is closer to correct.

One thing I find very interesting is that no one is surprised. At all. Some even say things like, we weren't doing that already? (I assume we were) I think very few people, left or right, want to see Iran's current government survive, though certainly there are differences about how to go about changing it, and some question whether we ought to interfere at all.


I'm also interested in whether or not this amounts to treason, as some suggest. I think there's more than likely a clearcut legal case to be made against the intelligence official(s) who leaked the info. I'm sure whoever it was took an oath and signed his/her name such that leaking secret documents is clearly illegal (treason is another, much more serious matter that could bring the death penalty). The reporter(s) who broke the story probably did nothing illegal, just immoral, and possibly committed treason (if anyone knows for sure, I'd love to read your comments).

Treason though? That's a tall order Nordburg. The founding fathers specifically defined treason in the Constitution so as to make it very hard to convict someone of it, a reaction to abuse by British monarchs. Since then amendments have been added to make it easier to convict people for sedition or espionage, which are basically the same thing. I'm not going to pretend to know where this lies exactly, but I can take the broad definition of treason -- disloyalty to one's country -- and see that what the intelligence official(s) and the reporter(s) have done appears to be treason, in the non-legally binding sense.

I support the press's right to break a story that reveals the contents of secret documents, but use some discretion. If you found a secret document that detailed how to make plutonium out of common household chemicals, would you report it? In this case, you can't deny that what they did is akin to "giving ... aid and comfort" to an enemy (article 3, section 3). At least I can't deny that. It's maybe not treason by our laws, but it's borderline. It probably falls under either sedition or espionage.

I support the press's right in the same way I support the KKK's right to say racist bullshit, which is to say, my eyebrow is raised skeptically. If the KKK nutjob starts to incite violence, such as burning a cross, he's gone too far. If the reporter aids an enemy we might as well be at war with, they've gone too far.

They used poor judgment by assisting the Iranian government. I am forced to question their loyalty. Is there another way to see this that I'm missing? Because this about as obvious as screwing banshees.

Clearly there's a public interest argument to be made, but I find it dubious considering the covert nature of the mission. I suppose the motivation could be to simply make Bush look bad, but I find even that level of BDS unlikely. Maybe it was deliberately leaked for some reason, perhaps to put pressure on Iran right before our two governments meet for the first time since what... 1979? And I suppose Iran knows better than anybody when foreign agents are trying to foment rebellion within their own borders. So this may not be as big a deal as it seems.


That's enough about treason.


I'll bring this up again just because I still find this the most fascinating part of the story: war with Iran seems to be a forgone conclusion, and our (American) collective reaction seems to be... eh. Does anyone else pick up that (disturbing) vibe? I think another unilateral (bi if you count Britain) invasion would be a disaster, which could be mitigated by a newly rightwing France and Germany possibly coming on board, but that's not the point. The point is the real wars haven't yet begun. The big event that changed the world and how we live that we all said was 9/11? It hasn't happened yet.



Boy, what a downer. Pleasant dreams everyone. This came out a little bleaker than I intended. You should forget about it and go back to sleep (I will too). I am interested in your thoughts about this though, so maybe put off the nap a little bit.


In lighter news, amuse yourself with some lolcats. They make me feel better anyway. I said "You haz mah buckit!" to someone the other day and no one got it but me (welcome to my world). At least I laughed about it.