It may simply be that I am of an older generation, one raised immediately after World War II to believe that there really are some things that are worth more than life, there is a certain conduct followed in the presence of ladies, that honor is among the highest of virtues, and that the sum is greater than its constituent parts. It could also be that at my particular age group (the generation thing again), maturity demands that I see things differently than, say, among people who are a generation younger. I was also raised to believe that among enlightened members of society, treason was among the ugliest of words and that a man or woman who turned their back on their own or adopted country wasn’t worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. Maybe you would never be worth a damn as a spouse, or a parent, or even within a hometown community — but to commit treasonous acts was simply out of the question.
We’ve had several people in the past who, in my view, committed treason but who were never charged with the offense. I’ve often wondered why . . . and a few that come to mind include Jane Fonda, who traveled to Vietnam and aided and abetted the enemy of the United States against our prisoners of war and warriors in the field. John Kerry, who in spite of his service in the Navy, provided psychological aid and comfort to North Vietnam. More recently, John Walker LIndh was discovered fighting alongside Afghani Taliban forces in opposition to American Marines and soldiers. What each of these persons has in common is the fact that none of them were prosecuted for treason against the United States. Why not? The official definition of treason, as taken from 10 United States Code, Chapter 115, (Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities), Section 2381 (Treason) states: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this Title but not less than $10,000.00; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Treason is the only crime that is specifically defined within the Constitution of the United States, and yet it has been rarely charged. According to some legal eagles, a successful prosecution for treason requires proof of action over words. In the entire history of the United States, fewer than forty people have been charged with treason, and less than that were found guilty. Benedict Arnold, the first treasonous American, fled to Great Britain before he could be charged, and traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were charged with espionage, rather than treason. American citizens who aided and abetted the enemy over radio broadcasts were charged with treason, but Jane Fonda, who essentially committed the same offense, was not. According to one theory, Fonda was not prosecuted because the Nixon administration did not want to make a martyr out of her at a time when Nixon, focusing on withdrawal from Vietnam, was also getting ready to run for reelection.
Personally, as a Vietnam Era Marine, I have always felt that Fonda and Kerry were traitors; they turned their backs on their country, and fellow Americans who were serving in harms way as members of the Armed Forces. I could not then, and do not now, understand how someone could give aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States; I do not understand how they could favor our enemy over their brothers and sisters serving honorably in uniform. I don’t know anyone, quite frankly, who ever reveled in war. I know plenty of veterans and retirees who would be willing to serve in Iraq, but only for the honor of serving America again, not because they loved being shot at, or killing others — and there is a difference. There is something very special about serving along side Marines and soldiers in a critical situation, of sharing the danger, as a team, that appeals to many in my age group. Fonda and Kerry, on the other hand, turned their backs on fellow Americans — and this is simply unforgivable. Whether John Walker-Lindh ever fired a weapon at our servicemen is unknown to me, but he was fighting along side the most insidious people of our present era and, in my judgment, Lindh deserves to be in prison.
Today we have additional concerns. Do people who come here as immigrants, who having satisfied residency requirements and taking an oath of allegiance to the United States, and who later conspire with terrorist groups, commit treason? In the case of Yaser Humdi, an individual from Saudi Arabia, we learned that he was a naturalized citizen of the United States. This means that he swore an oath, and yet he too was captured in Afghanistan fighting on the side of the Taliban. Was he charged with treason? No, he made a deal with the government to renounce his citizenship and he was returned to Saudi Arabia. A man, who denounced America by word and deed, was effectively placed under the “honor” system to notify the Saudi government at any time he left that country. I think Humdi belongs in jail, and I think the “deal” struck with the Saudi government establishes a dangerous precedence among those people who are living in the United States as naturalized citizens who may later act treasonously. We have said to these people, in effect, “Your treason will be rewarded by sending you back to your place of birth.”
Apparently, taking an oath means very little to people today. Perhaps this is all part of the “feel good” generation. Does our government reinforce this behavior by making deals with traitors? Among Muslims, there is no oath that can ever mean more than their allegiance to Islam; does this suggest that any Muslim who takes the oath of citizenship does so with the foregone conclusion that it means nothing to them relative to their adherence to fundamentalist ideologies? Should we conclude that “honor” is subjective, and there can be no real dishonor so long as one adheres to religious teaching? And if this is true, and if our government accepts such assertions as a practical matter, then why even have an oath of citizenship?
There are many — and I mean to suggest too many — examples where Americans have taken oaths and later dishonored them. Politicians take oaths of office all the time, and we have seen entirely too many instances where these people seem to place personal advantage over service to America. People take oaths of enlistment, and then refuse to obey the orders of their officers. People take marriage vows, and then discard them. I was once told that integrity was very similar to virginity — one can only lose it once. Have we as a people reached that point where our words mean nothing, our oaths are simply taken because advancement is conditional upon doing so?
My grandmother, who was born in 1894, told me that “old age is over-rated.” I am beginning to understand her meaning. The more trends I see in my beloved America, the less happy I am as someone who was raised to believe that an individual’s word is a personal bond. I want our government to prosecute traitors for what they are. We the people should let everyone know who the traitors are; they should be barred them from public office; they should be reviled by refusing to buy their biographies; they should be placed into the deepest hole we can find, or exiled away from our beloved America. After all, they are traitors and, at least to me, treason continues to be among the most abhorrent acts.
|