This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treason article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Treason was copied or moved into Treason laws in the United States with this edit on 16 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
An anonymous user does not approve of the English usage of singular noun + third person singular plural as a stylistic device (amongst other things as a gender neutral). This is an old and accepted usage. Not everyone likes it, but the Manual of Style is quite clear that an editor should not change the style of an article if its simply a matter of personal choice. Someone else (or other people) put together a coherent whole, it is both bad form and probably bad style, to mess with it. Please discuss here (anonymous user) if you have anything sensible to say on the issue. Just because you don't like the usage, doesn't make it wrong.
Incidentally, I don't think I wrote it - I'm just defending what's there. Francis Davey 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you might want to look at the singular they article. It was good enough for Shakespeare, Thackeray and Jane Austin, so its good enough for me. Francis Davey 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how much weight we should put on an argument about grammar that is not punctuated properly. Just pointing it out; no personal offence intended. Athanatis 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess who has a highly POV is open to debate.
The truth ought to be a reasonable defense.
One source for the point that the reason there were not trials for the traitors from the Civil War is Abraham Lincoln's second inaugaral address, in which he stated the policy of 'malice to none, charity to all'. Of course, Lincoln did not live to see how corrupted the history of the Civil War became. In America the issue is still hotly contested, as John McCain learned in the South Carolina primary.
What has happened here, in my opinion, is that the editor below feels that the truth is not a reasonable defense, but that the encyclopedia should be a bland compromise. Diderot would have been disappointed.
I will put in a new version of the edit that seeks to accommodate to your viewpoint as much as I feel is possible consistent with the truth that I would like to see in the articles, which is that the reason Confederates were not charged with treason had to do with the politics of reconciliation not the character of the acts of those who betrayed the US constitution and government.
Actually, as far as I have ever learned, the major reason that confederates were never charged with treason is because there was serious doubts among northern prosecutors that indictments for treason could be upheld. There was fear in the government that the Supreme Court would rule that the leaders of the confederacy had not committed any crime in seceding from the Union.--
Henrybaker
00:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Question of fact: At least five people were convicted of treason in or in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War - Mumford and the Lincoln Assassins. Presumably the article is addressing why we don't have photos of Davis and Lee on the gallows, but shouldn't the article address those who were tried? Hiernonymous ( talk) 06:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous user has been repeatedly inserting highly POV text into the United States section. The text reads:
This is quite clearly a personal opinion and far from being neutral. For the record I am a UK citizen and don't have a particular axe to grind about N v S in the US. It may well be that treason prosecutions were not pursued for reasons of national unity -- I would like to see some references to work on the subject before I was happy with that going here. But the rest of the material is rather evaluative and really has no place in an article on Treason. Perhaps it should be taken to an article on the civil war or reconstruction and debated there? Francis Davey 09:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice work on this!
Questions ...
To call a spade a spade this should actually read: "The punishment for treason was often extended and especially cruel torture.", no?
Can anybody add the dates for these?
While I totally agree with the Ashcroft thing and think he should be tarred and feathered, I think its a bit POV. It would be better to pick a historical case to make the point here. - Reboot
Edit the crime sidebar at Mediawiki:crime -
SV
(talk) 09:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In this sentence
Is there any particular reason Florida was chosen? The U.S. Constitution defines treason and would seem more appropriate. States don't ordinarily try people for treason. -- Cecropia 05:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Brutus betrayed Caesar, but not the Roman Republic. Actually he purported to protect Rome from Caesar's ambitions to become its sole ruler. This makes it dubious whether Brutus (and hence Cassius also) were true traitors, as they believed (with some right) that Caesar was an ursurper. And although they may have faced treason charges (or the outrage of the population), which made them flee Rome, I wouldn't call them traitors. Dante placed Brutus in the lowest circles of Hell, but Shakespeare portrayed him as a hero.
Although Brutus is still an assassin... But this is factual, while treason is more subjective.
I also find it quite comical that Caesar is named now as a traitor as well. The traitor betrayed. And although crossing the Rubicon amounted to treason, he was never convicted for it. I must conclude thah treason has a strong political stench to it, but I'm not sure that although formally maybe someone has comitted treason, either an upheld conviction or historic infamy (however subjective judgment may be in both cases) should be needed to put someone in these lists as a traitor, as I do agree with Dante that it is one of the worst crimes man can commit. But of course, that is subjective as well ;)
-On a related note, I somehow doubt that Lucifer was a historical figure. I'm removing it from the list. [Thucydides]
The article seems to justify not listing leaders of the
Confederacy, the most organized armed rebellion in
U.S. history, as traitors because charges were never brought. Are we to only list people who were convicted of treason? In that case
Benedict Arnold should not be listed - he fled to Britain.
Judas Iscariot, moreover, was never convicted of treason, indeed would have been considered heroicly loyal by the
Romans, the regime in power at that time.
We should also, if we're just listing people convicted of treason, expand the list to political dissidents of such regimes as the
Soviet Union,
Saddam Hussein's
Iraq, and any number of other historical and current dictatorial regimes.
So clearly we are not listing just those convicted of treason - so why exclude Confederates?
Then again, if we're listing people whom we only believe to be traitors, why not expand the list greatly and let people make their own decisions by reading the individual's biography? If we expand the list of traitors to popular belief in their era (an important note), then we might place
George Washington on the list of UK traitors, for example.
In short, this list is clearly Western (even U.S.) biased, has no clear pattern as to why or where people are listed, and incomplete at best. We should either drop it entirely, or set up guidelines and expand it greatly.
--
Xinoph 17:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
You could say many things about Thomas More, but how is he classified as a traitor? -- Penta 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More was convicted of treason and executed for refusing to recognise Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the Church of England. Richard75 02:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Can dual loyalty be an example of treason - for example how Napoleon III failed to prevent the rise of the German Empire because he was more loyal to Italy than to France? GCarty 11:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did some reorganizing of the article, such as putting treason under Britain and the US under their own sections. I also expanded on the fact that people accuse others of treason for dissenting against government policy. I know that's a potential
NPOV case. so I didn't name names here. But I think it's valid to have that in the article on treason.
JesseG 06:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
This list is way too subjective. It should only include those who have at least been brought to trial for treason, with a notation of whether the trial succeeded. Also, the definitions of treason in different countries and times vary. The legal definition of treason, as noted in the U.S. article, is very narrow. On the other hand, monarchies can and have deemed anyone who opposes the monarch traitors. Kings have had wives or even concubines put to death on suspicion of sleeping with someone else. How were they traitors? The King was the state (L'etat, ce moi) so betraying him personally was treason.
Certainly George Washington was a traitor in the eyes of Britain, but so was every leader of the American Revolution. How do we list Washington in particular without naming John Adams, who was much more the firebrand in believing that the interests of the colonies and the crown were unreconcilable? Why not Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, a theoretical basis of treason? Then I will turn the other way and point out that the treaty signed in 1783 that acknowledged the indepedence of the U.S. in effect absolved American leaders of treason.
Louis XVI and Marie Antionette? Oh, please. Like it or not, they were the internationally recognized rulers of France. So when you deem them and not, say, Danton and Robespierre, as traitors, you are redefining "traitor" as "loser."
After the death of Lenin, was Trotsky the traitor? Or Stalin?
I would not even list those who I reasonably believe are traitors if they were never so charged. Example: John Walker Lindh. His case pretty neatly fits the Constitutional definition of treason. But he was never charged with treason. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Situation might be interesting in the context of this article. -- Daniel C. Boyer 15:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
That's right. You can be guilty of treason even if you are not a citizen of the country, because as soon as you enter that country the government owes you a duty of protection under its laws, which carries a reciprocal duty not to attack that government or country while you are there (unless you are a member of an invading army). As for wanting to make your country a better place, motive is irrelevant in the criminal law of most (probably all) countries. It's what you do, not why you do it, that makes you guilty of treason. And no distinction is drawn between treason against a country and against the government of that country. Richard75 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is that case were non-citizens have been convicted of treason are dubious (including Joyce). The fact that a court has made a decision is hardly the end of the matter as court can make ridiculous and contradictory decisions, particulary when political influence comes into play.-- Jack Upland 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the law is whatever the courts say it is. Although we can all disagree with a court's decision, that decision still remains the law of the land either until a higher court overrules it or the legislature passes an act to change the law. The Joyce case was appealed to the House of Lords, the nation's highest court of appeal, which upheld the verdict and sentence. Richard75 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can a citizen of Country A who willingly "outsources" or sends the jobs of gainfully employed citizens to Country B, be considered a traitor to Country A? The logic being that the cumlative effect of repeatedly sending high paying jobs overseas to countries with lower paying wages, resulting in the slow erosion of that country's economy. One definition of the word treason seems to allow for such an interpretation. "citizen's actions to...make war against, or seriously injure the [parent country]" War could be interpreted as economic warfare.
There is significant overlap of the United Kingdom section with the High treason article. This article mainly discusses high treason after all and not petty treason. So I guess either discuss UK briefly mainly the current situation and link to the high treason article OR kill the high treason article and move it all here. Either way, I don't think the current situation is fruitful... Nil Einne 18:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the above comment on petty treason, there isn't really much to say about petty treason as it was just aggravated murder, so any article about treason is bound to focus on high treason. Petty treason was not unique to the UK, they had it in the US as well until 1789. Richard75 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, treason is more expansive than just High Treason, and is not limited to one nationality. Perhaps some redundancy could be eliminated by linking between articles, but I think both articles should be included.
I think the current situation is helpful, in that it briefly explains the term "high treason".-- Jack Upland 06:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence was disputed by User:Krich '"it is objected" by whom? source please'
I believe the editor was probably refering to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence , "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, ..." -- GangofOne 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
United States Code, Title 18:
Sec. 2384. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Sec. 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
Whoever enlists or is engaged within the United States or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, with intent to serve in armed hostility against the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A few points. First, successfully overthrowing a government is not treason--winners are, by definition, not traitors. :)
Second, intepreting the DofI to mean that arbitrary attempts to overthrow the US government are legally tolerated, is wrong. The D of I, keep in mind, has no legal force as US law; it was a political piece justifying the removal of the British crown from the American colonies. The government to be "abolished", in this case, was seated in London. The Constitution contains no language which might be construed to permit the non-democratic overthrow of the US government. It does, however, list many mechanism for the peaceful replacement of the government, most notably this thing called "elections". Of course, some argue that the major two political parties are indistinguishable, thus true reform cannot come democratically; I rather strongly disagree with such sentiments. -- EngineerScotty 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Added dab-link to Anne Coulter's book.
Also, in that spirit; it might be useful to add content about the use of "treason" (and related epithets like "traitor", "disloyal", etc.) as a way of deriding one's political opponents (especially in the context of democratic debate, where extra-legal means of achieving a policy objective are not considered)? In US politics today; both sides of the political spectrum have their share of ideologues who routinely accuse the other side of treason. This is certainly not a phenomenon unique to 2006; or to the US. -- EngineerScotty 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I would think there is a fair amount of critiscism of treason laws, as "victor's justice" etc. Has anyone given thought to a "criticisms" heading? 24.64.223.203 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we clarify the wording surround Oppenheimer? It is utterly opaque, first insinuating that he's guilty, then stating that he's not, and then implying his guilt?? innocence?? is a right-wing and/or jewish plot ???? I've never even heard ot this "plot" before. (My memory of reading venona long ago was that it cleared Oppenheimer completely) 67.100.217.179 06:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we start a discussion here on whether the declaration of independence in the American colonies in 1776 constitued treason or sedition? Let us stick to an intelligent discussion, please. 137.186.248.248 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Should there perhaps be a link from this page to other references of "treason", such as to Ann Coulter's book "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism"? PJ 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. William Joyce was the last person to be put to death for treason, in 1946.
Theodore Schurch appears to be the last person to be put to death for treason, in 1946, a day after the penultimate person, William Joyce. Qwerty 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Schurch was executed for treachery, not treason. See Treachery Act 1940. Richard75 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
First, we need citings for this. Second, we need examples; none is given. I for one would like to know what nations define treason in this way. (Unsigned comment by User:Mrzold, 02:13, 12 July 2007)
My apologies. These are good examples. My mistake was due to haste and a search for something more specific which need not be included in this article.-- Mrzold 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the legislation quoted in this article uses the section and subsection numbers that are used in the original text. Please do not change them, as accuracy of quotations supercedes Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Richard75 ( talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A user with IP address 98.214.142.70 placed the following suggestion at the very bottom of the article:
What this user has said may well be worthy of inclusion, but it needs to be checked (according to wiktionary, treason does come from the latin noun traditio, which does has the meaning ascribed to it in the paragraph above), and it cannot go in an illogical place at the end of the article. Really it would belong at the beginning.
James500 (
talk)
06:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that it:Tradimento (reato) is the correct page in the italian language wiki; could someone please explain why it has been removed? James500 ( talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have decided that this page was correct and added it. James500 ( talk) 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I don't think that policy excludes the listing of synonyms. A recent edit removed a list of colloquial terms for "traitor" because the encyclopedia is "not a thesaurus". I wonder if this is correct? However wiktionary includes a thesaurus. James500 ( talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious that the Ahmadiyya sect is not representive of islam, in fact it's considered heretical. So their opinion cannot be used. While some muslims in public often try to deny that apostasy is punished with death(often to Western jounalists), the practice is and has always been that it does require the death penalty. Hundreds if not thousands of people have been killed/executed the past few years. WikiPedias own article on the subject is also in line with that. It's in fact written into the laws of several islamic countries such as Pakistan. People are being regularly prosecuted and/or persecuted for abandoning islam all over the world. Their only defence is to prove that they were not born muslim but instead belong to one of the few religions that islam 'tolerates'(or rather: harasses and use for tax income) such as christianity or judaism. Lets be honest here rather than blind. M99 87.59.77.160 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC).
I came here after watching American Dad episode Stanny Slickers II: The Legend of Ollie's Gold where Stan said (via song) that in the Iran-Contra Affair, although good-intentioned - what the President and General North did were "technically High Treason". Is that true? Is there a "High Treason" statute in the US? This article only says something about kings of England. Also what is the difference between treason and treachery? Thanks. -- 64.149.36.182 ( talk) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | 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; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [2] | ” |
I came here after reading the article [3] and watching the embedded video. My question is: Is the collaboration of Robert Mercer, Rebecca Mercer, Stephen Bannon, and Kelly Conway in an attempt to transform the government of the US into their desired form of government (a fascistic state rather than an “of the people, by the people, and for the people” democratic government) a conspiracy to commit high treason within the meaning of 18 USC 2381?’’ Lobdillj ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section about treason in the United States, it says
Benedict Arnold should be removed from this passage. The United States did not exist until the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788. Arnold committed his traitorous actions in 1780.
-- Akamantauskas ( talk) 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Bendict arnold should not be there, putting his name there is more opinion than fact. By that regard 1/3 of the british subjects at that time would be treasonous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.181.39 ( talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The wording is political, like building facts on the ground. Gaza is not autonomous, they are still occupied because they are subject to total blockade and everything including counting down to their last calorie is controlled by Israel. The territory doesn't belong to Fatah or Hamas. In fact Israel is trying to make the break permanent and has even attempted to give responsibility of Gaza to Egypt.
'Merikan ( talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I mean, no question he betrayed Jesus, but Jesus wasn't exactly a sovereign nation. Why is he given such an important place here, as to be pictured in the top right spot? 64.30.108.172 ( talk) 14:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties (until they were abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively).[1]
Was burning women at the stake really repealed in 1973? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.55.103 ( talk) 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm suspicious about the etymology given (or rather, some details of it). Currently the article says "Indeed, the etymology of the word traitor originates with Judas' handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities: the word is derived from the Latin traditorem which means "one who delivers."[2]
However, the reference given (the Online Etymology Dictionary - I don't know how scholarly this source is) says "early 13c., from O.Fr. traitor (11c.), from L. traditorem (nom. traditor) "betrayer," lit. "one who delivers," from stem of tradere "deliver, surrender" (see tradition). Originally usually with a suggestion of Judas Iscariot."
"Originally usually with a suggestion" seems remarkably like weasel words to me, and the comparison to Judas seems less important than the actual act of handing someone over to their enemies. Wardog ( talk) 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The first definition matches our current text approximately, but our article is about treason, not about the word "traitor". The OED entry for "treason" does not mention Judas at all. So I feel that the first meaning is not relevant for us at all and I'm going to remove it. Zero talk 05:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Lots of legal definitions of treason involve giving "Aid and Comfort" to a country's enemies. is "Aid and Comfort" defined in law? It strikes me as a rather vague concept otherwise, and one that a good (or malicious) lawyer could make to mean just about anything (criticising government policy; anti-war protests; ; negligence or incompetance by the military; giving medical care to wounded enemy soldiers; etc). Wardog ( talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think that the mention of King Lear or Dante's Inferno really fit into the summary of treason at the top of the article, but there isn't really a section that it would fit. Maybe a treason in culture section, or views on treason, or anything of the type would work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkyguy1995 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts "Oran's Dictionary of the Law ..." is totally misleading for the crime of treason in the majority of the English speaking nations (as described in separate paragraphs in this article). A clear distinction needs to be made between what is considered treason in those countries where an oath of allegiance is taken to uphold the constitution ( as in America) and those that swear to be faithful to a sovereign ( as in Britain). Although in practice may not make much difference in a modern democracy, there is a clear legal distinction. The dignified ( Walter Bagehot) in the Commonwealth has its uses in making things such as treason much easier to understand. -- PBS ( talk) 10:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
currently the article says:
"In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), or beheading (royalty and nobility). Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties..."
Was beheading a statutory requirement for nobility or a mercy show under royal prerogative (as in the case of Sir Thomas More who was neither royalty and nobility)? But whether that sentence is accurate or not, the next one is not as nobles were also beheaded for reasons other than treason. -- PBS ( talk) 10:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article lead:
Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group, or may otherwise disagree with the group members making the charge. The term "race traitor" is often used by white supremacists and black supremacists, or directed at people in inter-racial relationships with regard to miscegenation.
This subject is not covered in the body of the article and seems unrelated to the main subject and structure of the article. The entry would seem to be more appropriate in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I would not feel comfortable making edits without first bringing it up here. In light of some recent events, I haven noticed that people are linking to a portion of the US definition of Treason on this this page and misinterpreting what it actually says. To be honest, the section is confusing and unclear as to the definition of the crime.
"To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
The next paragraph talks about other laws congress has passed. Then followed by the actual Treason Law as condified by congress which is in the middle of paragraph 3 of that section.
First, "the only crime so defined" is being confused as meaning that this is the only existing offense in US law.. As the article points out 3 paragraphs down, the constitutional provision is not the actual crime; the actual crime is codified under US code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
Second, the actual crime is not distinguished from the regular text of the paragraph (similar to the constitutional provision in paragraph 1) which makes understand that the actual crime is written elsewhere even more difficult.
Third, it makes no sense to have paragraph 2 list the other crimes that were passsed by congress in association with the Treason crime in paragraph two and then wait until paragraph 3 to list the actual crimes. Even in the congressional code, the reason crime is listed first, before these Treason related crimes.
This page references the crime of Treason, yet the actual criminal definition of US Treason is not discussed until paragraph 3 of the US treason section - With paragraph one providing a confusing reference to the constitutional prohibition regarding Treason, and paragraph 2 discussing other crimes that are associated with the passing of the treason law but not the actual law. The actual law appears in paragraph 3, is buried towards the end of the paragraph, and is difficult to spot since it is not distinguished from the text. A normal casual viewer is going to stop reading at paragraph 2 when the articles goes into more general, associaedncrimes. That appears to be the actual case with people reference the constitutional provision as the crime itself. This is leading to inaccurate and misguided information being disseminated.
In the interest of accuracy, please advise or comment as soon as possible. Tthank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.198.17 ( talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The text currently says that treason only applies to persons who "owe allegiance to the Queen in right of the United Kingdom." But there is no source and revised Treason Felony Act 1848 refers to "the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries." [4] Does anyone have a source for the claim? I note too that the article text says that UK citizens owe allegiance to the Queen of the UK. But they also owe allegiance to the person of the Queen. TFD ( talk) 12:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge High treason, which is quite short, into this article, as that article says it is essentially the same concept as Treason. I think the distinction between high and petty treason treason can be handled briefly here. Jonathunder ( talk) 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The sentence about the Rosenbergs comes directly after this sentence: "However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as... espionage." The Rosenbergs are a notorious example of this. Nowhere does it say that they were originally charged with treason, or that treason and espionage are the same thing. It says the opposite! Richard75 ( talk) 08:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Antinational and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Antinational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
08:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Anti-national and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Anti-national until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Some sections currently reference allegiance to or crimes against "Her Majesty," "the Queen," etc., rather than using the styling for the current reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. I understand that there is a lot of editing going on due to the sheer volume of articles that need to be edited at this time, but at some point this will need to be edited to reflect the current reign of King Charles III. Xxthedeathlordxx ( talk) 23:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Xxthedeathlordxx ( talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treason article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Treason was copied or moved into Treason laws in the United States with this edit on 16 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
An anonymous user does not approve of the English usage of singular noun + third person singular plural as a stylistic device (amongst other things as a gender neutral). This is an old and accepted usage. Not everyone likes it, but the Manual of Style is quite clear that an editor should not change the style of an article if its simply a matter of personal choice. Someone else (or other people) put together a coherent whole, it is both bad form and probably bad style, to mess with it. Please discuss here (anonymous user) if you have anything sensible to say on the issue. Just because you don't like the usage, doesn't make it wrong.
Incidentally, I don't think I wrote it - I'm just defending what's there. Francis Davey 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you might want to look at the singular they article. It was good enough for Shakespeare, Thackeray and Jane Austin, so its good enough for me. Francis Davey 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how much weight we should put on an argument about grammar that is not punctuated properly. Just pointing it out; no personal offence intended. Athanatis 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess who has a highly POV is open to debate.
The truth ought to be a reasonable defense.
One source for the point that the reason there were not trials for the traitors from the Civil War is Abraham Lincoln's second inaugaral address, in which he stated the policy of 'malice to none, charity to all'. Of course, Lincoln did not live to see how corrupted the history of the Civil War became. In America the issue is still hotly contested, as John McCain learned in the South Carolina primary.
What has happened here, in my opinion, is that the editor below feels that the truth is not a reasonable defense, but that the encyclopedia should be a bland compromise. Diderot would have been disappointed.
I will put in a new version of the edit that seeks to accommodate to your viewpoint as much as I feel is possible consistent with the truth that I would like to see in the articles, which is that the reason Confederates were not charged with treason had to do with the politics of reconciliation not the character of the acts of those who betrayed the US constitution and government.
Actually, as far as I have ever learned, the major reason that confederates were never charged with treason is because there was serious doubts among northern prosecutors that indictments for treason could be upheld. There was fear in the government that the Supreme Court would rule that the leaders of the confederacy had not committed any crime in seceding from the Union.--
Henrybaker
00:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Question of fact: At least five people were convicted of treason in or in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War - Mumford and the Lincoln Assassins. Presumably the article is addressing why we don't have photos of Davis and Lee on the gallows, but shouldn't the article address those who were tried? Hiernonymous ( talk) 06:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous user has been repeatedly inserting highly POV text into the United States section. The text reads:
This is quite clearly a personal opinion and far from being neutral. For the record I am a UK citizen and don't have a particular axe to grind about N v S in the US. It may well be that treason prosecutions were not pursued for reasons of national unity -- I would like to see some references to work on the subject before I was happy with that going here. But the rest of the material is rather evaluative and really has no place in an article on Treason. Perhaps it should be taken to an article on the civil war or reconstruction and debated there? Francis Davey 09:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice work on this!
Questions ...
To call a spade a spade this should actually read: "The punishment for treason was often extended and especially cruel torture.", no?
Can anybody add the dates for these?
While I totally agree with the Ashcroft thing and think he should be tarred and feathered, I think its a bit POV. It would be better to pick a historical case to make the point here. - Reboot
Edit the crime sidebar at Mediawiki:crime -
SV
(talk) 09:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In this sentence
Is there any particular reason Florida was chosen? The U.S. Constitution defines treason and would seem more appropriate. States don't ordinarily try people for treason. -- Cecropia 05:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Brutus betrayed Caesar, but not the Roman Republic. Actually he purported to protect Rome from Caesar's ambitions to become its sole ruler. This makes it dubious whether Brutus (and hence Cassius also) were true traitors, as they believed (with some right) that Caesar was an ursurper. And although they may have faced treason charges (or the outrage of the population), which made them flee Rome, I wouldn't call them traitors. Dante placed Brutus in the lowest circles of Hell, but Shakespeare portrayed him as a hero.
Although Brutus is still an assassin... But this is factual, while treason is more subjective.
I also find it quite comical that Caesar is named now as a traitor as well. The traitor betrayed. And although crossing the Rubicon amounted to treason, he was never convicted for it. I must conclude thah treason has a strong political stench to it, but I'm not sure that although formally maybe someone has comitted treason, either an upheld conviction or historic infamy (however subjective judgment may be in both cases) should be needed to put someone in these lists as a traitor, as I do agree with Dante that it is one of the worst crimes man can commit. But of course, that is subjective as well ;)
-On a related note, I somehow doubt that Lucifer was a historical figure. I'm removing it from the list. [Thucydides]
The article seems to justify not listing leaders of the
Confederacy, the most organized armed rebellion in
U.S. history, as traitors because charges were never brought. Are we to only list people who were convicted of treason? In that case
Benedict Arnold should not be listed - he fled to Britain.
Judas Iscariot, moreover, was never convicted of treason, indeed would have been considered heroicly loyal by the
Romans, the regime in power at that time.
We should also, if we're just listing people convicted of treason, expand the list to political dissidents of such regimes as the
Soviet Union,
Saddam Hussein's
Iraq, and any number of other historical and current dictatorial regimes.
So clearly we are not listing just those convicted of treason - so why exclude Confederates?
Then again, if we're listing people whom we only believe to be traitors, why not expand the list greatly and let people make their own decisions by reading the individual's biography? If we expand the list of traitors to popular belief in their era (an important note), then we might place
George Washington on the list of UK traitors, for example.
In short, this list is clearly Western (even U.S.) biased, has no clear pattern as to why or where people are listed, and incomplete at best. We should either drop it entirely, or set up guidelines and expand it greatly.
--
Xinoph 17:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
You could say many things about Thomas More, but how is he classified as a traitor? -- Penta 22:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
More was convicted of treason and executed for refusing to recognise Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the Church of England. Richard75 02:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Can dual loyalty be an example of treason - for example how Napoleon III failed to prevent the rise of the German Empire because he was more loyal to Italy than to France? GCarty 11:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did some reorganizing of the article, such as putting treason under Britain and the US under their own sections. I also expanded on the fact that people accuse others of treason for dissenting against government policy. I know that's a potential
NPOV case. so I didn't name names here. But I think it's valid to have that in the article on treason.
JesseG 06:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
This list is way too subjective. It should only include those who have at least been brought to trial for treason, with a notation of whether the trial succeeded. Also, the definitions of treason in different countries and times vary. The legal definition of treason, as noted in the U.S. article, is very narrow. On the other hand, monarchies can and have deemed anyone who opposes the monarch traitors. Kings have had wives or even concubines put to death on suspicion of sleeping with someone else. How were they traitors? The King was the state (L'etat, ce moi) so betraying him personally was treason.
Certainly George Washington was a traitor in the eyes of Britain, but so was every leader of the American Revolution. How do we list Washington in particular without naming John Adams, who was much more the firebrand in believing that the interests of the colonies and the crown were unreconcilable? Why not Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Declaration of Independence, a theoretical basis of treason? Then I will turn the other way and point out that the treaty signed in 1783 that acknowledged the indepedence of the U.S. in effect absolved American leaders of treason.
Louis XVI and Marie Antionette? Oh, please. Like it or not, they were the internationally recognized rulers of France. So when you deem them and not, say, Danton and Robespierre, as traitors, you are redefining "traitor" as "loser."
After the death of Lenin, was Trotsky the traitor? Or Stalin?
I would not even list those who I reasonably believe are traitors if they were never so charged. Example: John Walker Lindh. His case pretty neatly fits the Constitutional definition of treason. But he was never charged with treason. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Situation might be interesting in the context of this article. -- Daniel C. Boyer 15:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
That's right. You can be guilty of treason even if you are not a citizen of the country, because as soon as you enter that country the government owes you a duty of protection under its laws, which carries a reciprocal duty not to attack that government or country while you are there (unless you are a member of an invading army). As for wanting to make your country a better place, motive is irrelevant in the criminal law of most (probably all) countries. It's what you do, not why you do it, that makes you guilty of treason. And no distinction is drawn between treason against a country and against the government of that country. Richard75 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is that case were non-citizens have been convicted of treason are dubious (including Joyce). The fact that a court has made a decision is hardly the end of the matter as court can make ridiculous and contradictory decisions, particulary when political influence comes into play.-- Jack Upland 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the law is whatever the courts say it is. Although we can all disagree with a court's decision, that decision still remains the law of the land either until a higher court overrules it or the legislature passes an act to change the law. The Joyce case was appealed to the House of Lords, the nation's highest court of appeal, which upheld the verdict and sentence. Richard75 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can a citizen of Country A who willingly "outsources" or sends the jobs of gainfully employed citizens to Country B, be considered a traitor to Country A? The logic being that the cumlative effect of repeatedly sending high paying jobs overseas to countries with lower paying wages, resulting in the slow erosion of that country's economy. One definition of the word treason seems to allow for such an interpretation. "citizen's actions to...make war against, or seriously injure the [parent country]" War could be interpreted as economic warfare.
There is significant overlap of the United Kingdom section with the High treason article. This article mainly discusses high treason after all and not petty treason. So I guess either discuss UK briefly mainly the current situation and link to the high treason article OR kill the high treason article and move it all here. Either way, I don't think the current situation is fruitful... Nil Einne 18:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the above comment on petty treason, there isn't really much to say about petty treason as it was just aggravated murder, so any article about treason is bound to focus on high treason. Petty treason was not unique to the UK, they had it in the US as well until 1789. Richard75 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, treason is more expansive than just High Treason, and is not limited to one nationality. Perhaps some redundancy could be eliminated by linking between articles, but I think both articles should be included.
I think the current situation is helpful, in that it briefly explains the term "high treason".-- Jack Upland 06:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence was disputed by User:Krich '"it is objected" by whom? source please'
I believe the editor was probably refering to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence , "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, ..." -- GangofOne 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
United States Code, Title 18:
Sec. 2384. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Sec. 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
Whoever enlists or is engaged within the United States or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, with intent to serve in armed hostility against the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A few points. First, successfully overthrowing a government is not treason--winners are, by definition, not traitors. :)
Second, intepreting the DofI to mean that arbitrary attempts to overthrow the US government are legally tolerated, is wrong. The D of I, keep in mind, has no legal force as US law; it was a political piece justifying the removal of the British crown from the American colonies. The government to be "abolished", in this case, was seated in London. The Constitution contains no language which might be construed to permit the non-democratic overthrow of the US government. It does, however, list many mechanism for the peaceful replacement of the government, most notably this thing called "elections". Of course, some argue that the major two political parties are indistinguishable, thus true reform cannot come democratically; I rather strongly disagree with such sentiments. -- EngineerScotty 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Added dab-link to Anne Coulter's book.
Also, in that spirit; it might be useful to add content about the use of "treason" (and related epithets like "traitor", "disloyal", etc.) as a way of deriding one's political opponents (especially in the context of democratic debate, where extra-legal means of achieving a policy objective are not considered)? In US politics today; both sides of the political spectrum have their share of ideologues who routinely accuse the other side of treason. This is certainly not a phenomenon unique to 2006; or to the US. -- EngineerScotty 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I would think there is a fair amount of critiscism of treason laws, as "victor's justice" etc. Has anyone given thought to a "criticisms" heading? 24.64.223.203 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we clarify the wording surround Oppenheimer? It is utterly opaque, first insinuating that he's guilty, then stating that he's not, and then implying his guilt?? innocence?? is a right-wing and/or jewish plot ???? I've never even heard ot this "plot" before. (My memory of reading venona long ago was that it cleared Oppenheimer completely) 67.100.217.179 06:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we start a discussion here on whether the declaration of independence in the American colonies in 1776 constitued treason or sedition? Let us stick to an intelligent discussion, please. 137.186.248.248 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Should there perhaps be a link from this page to other references of "treason", such as to Ann Coulter's book "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism"? PJ 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. William Joyce was the last person to be put to death for treason, in 1946.
Theodore Schurch appears to be the last person to be put to death for treason, in 1946, a day after the penultimate person, William Joyce. Qwerty 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Schurch was executed for treachery, not treason. See Treachery Act 1940. Richard75 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
First, we need citings for this. Second, we need examples; none is given. I for one would like to know what nations define treason in this way. (Unsigned comment by User:Mrzold, 02:13, 12 July 2007)
My apologies. These are good examples. My mistake was due to haste and a search for something more specific which need not be included in this article.-- Mrzold 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the legislation quoted in this article uses the section and subsection numbers that are used in the original text. Please do not change them, as accuracy of quotations supercedes Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Richard75 ( talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A user with IP address 98.214.142.70 placed the following suggestion at the very bottom of the article:
What this user has said may well be worthy of inclusion, but it needs to be checked (according to wiktionary, treason does come from the latin noun traditio, which does has the meaning ascribed to it in the paragraph above), and it cannot go in an illogical place at the end of the article. Really it would belong at the beginning.
James500 (
talk)
06:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that it:Tradimento (reato) is the correct page in the italian language wiki; could someone please explain why it has been removed? James500 ( talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have decided that this page was correct and added it. James500 ( talk) 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I don't think that policy excludes the listing of synonyms. A recent edit removed a list of colloquial terms for "traitor" because the encyclopedia is "not a thesaurus". I wonder if this is correct? However wiktionary includes a thesaurus. James500 ( talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious that the Ahmadiyya sect is not representive of islam, in fact it's considered heretical. So their opinion cannot be used. While some muslims in public often try to deny that apostasy is punished with death(often to Western jounalists), the practice is and has always been that it does require the death penalty. Hundreds if not thousands of people have been killed/executed the past few years. WikiPedias own article on the subject is also in line with that. It's in fact written into the laws of several islamic countries such as Pakistan. People are being regularly prosecuted and/or persecuted for abandoning islam all over the world. Their only defence is to prove that they were not born muslim but instead belong to one of the few religions that islam 'tolerates'(or rather: harasses and use for tax income) such as christianity or judaism. Lets be honest here rather than blind. M99 87.59.77.160 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC).
I came here after watching American Dad episode Stanny Slickers II: The Legend of Ollie's Gold where Stan said (via song) that in the Iran-Contra Affair, although good-intentioned - what the President and General North did were "technically High Treason". Is that true? Is there a "High Treason" statute in the US? This article only says something about kings of England. Also what is the difference between treason and treachery? Thanks. -- 64.149.36.182 ( talk) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | 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; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [2] | ” |
I came here after reading the article [3] and watching the embedded video. My question is: Is the collaboration of Robert Mercer, Rebecca Mercer, Stephen Bannon, and Kelly Conway in an attempt to transform the government of the US into their desired form of government (a fascistic state rather than an “of the people, by the people, and for the people” democratic government) a conspiracy to commit high treason within the meaning of 18 USC 2381?’’ Lobdillj ( talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section about treason in the United States, it says
Benedict Arnold should be removed from this passage. The United States did not exist until the United States Constitution was ratified in 1788. Arnold committed his traitorous actions in 1780.
-- Akamantauskas ( talk) 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Bendict arnold should not be there, putting his name there is more opinion than fact. By that regard 1/3 of the british subjects at that time would be treasonous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.181.39 ( talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The wording is political, like building facts on the ground. Gaza is not autonomous, they are still occupied because they are subject to total blockade and everything including counting down to their last calorie is controlled by Israel. The territory doesn't belong to Fatah or Hamas. In fact Israel is trying to make the break permanent and has even attempted to give responsibility of Gaza to Egypt.
'Merikan ( talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I mean, no question he betrayed Jesus, but Jesus wasn't exactly a sovereign nation. Why is he given such an important place here, as to be pictured in the top right spot? 64.30.108.172 ( talk) 14:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties (until they were abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively).[1]
Was burning women at the stake really repealed in 1973? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.55.103 ( talk) 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm suspicious about the etymology given (or rather, some details of it). Currently the article says "Indeed, the etymology of the word traitor originates with Judas' handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities: the word is derived from the Latin traditorem which means "one who delivers."[2]
However, the reference given (the Online Etymology Dictionary - I don't know how scholarly this source is) says "early 13c., from O.Fr. traitor (11c.), from L. traditorem (nom. traditor) "betrayer," lit. "one who delivers," from stem of tradere "deliver, surrender" (see tradition). Originally usually with a suggestion of Judas Iscariot."
"Originally usually with a suggestion" seems remarkably like weasel words to me, and the comparison to Judas seems less important than the actual act of handing someone over to their enemies. Wardog ( talk) 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The first definition matches our current text approximately, but our article is about treason, not about the word "traitor". The OED entry for "treason" does not mention Judas at all. So I feel that the first meaning is not relevant for us at all and I'm going to remove it. Zero talk 05:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Lots of legal definitions of treason involve giving "Aid and Comfort" to a country's enemies. is "Aid and Comfort" defined in law? It strikes me as a rather vague concept otherwise, and one that a good (or malicious) lawyer could make to mean just about anything (criticising government policy; anti-war protests; ; negligence or incompetance by the military; giving medical care to wounded enemy soldiers; etc). Wardog ( talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think that the mention of King Lear or Dante's Inferno really fit into the summary of treason at the top of the article, but there isn't really a section that it would fit. Maybe a treason in culture section, or views on treason, or anything of the type would work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkyguy1995 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts "Oran's Dictionary of the Law ..." is totally misleading for the crime of treason in the majority of the English speaking nations (as described in separate paragraphs in this article). A clear distinction needs to be made between what is considered treason in those countries where an oath of allegiance is taken to uphold the constitution ( as in America) and those that swear to be faithful to a sovereign ( as in Britain). Although in practice may not make much difference in a modern democracy, there is a clear legal distinction. The dignified ( Walter Bagehot) in the Commonwealth has its uses in making things such as treason much easier to understand. -- PBS ( talk) 10:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
currently the article says:
"In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), or beheading (royalty and nobility). Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties..."
Was beheading a statutory requirement for nobility or a mercy show under royal prerogative (as in the case of Sir Thomas More who was neither royalty and nobility)? But whether that sentence is accurate or not, the next one is not as nobles were also beheaded for reasons other than treason. -- PBS ( talk) 10:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article lead:
Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group, or may otherwise disagree with the group members making the charge. The term "race traitor" is often used by white supremacists and black supremacists, or directed at people in inter-racial relationships with regard to miscegenation.
This subject is not covered in the body of the article and seems unrelated to the main subject and structure of the article. The entry would seem to be more appropriate in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I would not feel comfortable making edits without first bringing it up here. In light of some recent events, I haven noticed that people are linking to a portion of the US definition of Treason on this this page and misinterpreting what it actually says. To be honest, the section is confusing and unclear as to the definition of the crime.
"To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
The next paragraph talks about other laws congress has passed. Then followed by the actual Treason Law as condified by congress which is in the middle of paragraph 3 of that section.
First, "the only crime so defined" is being confused as meaning that this is the only existing offense in US law.. As the article points out 3 paragraphs down, the constitutional provision is not the actual crime; the actual crime is codified under US code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
Second, the actual crime is not distinguished from the regular text of the paragraph (similar to the constitutional provision in paragraph 1) which makes understand that the actual crime is written elsewhere even more difficult.
Third, it makes no sense to have paragraph 2 list the other crimes that were passsed by congress in association with the Treason crime in paragraph two and then wait until paragraph 3 to list the actual crimes. Even in the congressional code, the reason crime is listed first, before these Treason related crimes.
This page references the crime of Treason, yet the actual criminal definition of US Treason is not discussed until paragraph 3 of the US treason section - With paragraph one providing a confusing reference to the constitutional prohibition regarding Treason, and paragraph 2 discussing other crimes that are associated with the passing of the treason law but not the actual law. The actual law appears in paragraph 3, is buried towards the end of the paragraph, and is difficult to spot since it is not distinguished from the text. A normal casual viewer is going to stop reading at paragraph 2 when the articles goes into more general, associaedncrimes. That appears to be the actual case with people reference the constitutional provision as the crime itself. This is leading to inaccurate and misguided information being disseminated.
In the interest of accuracy, please advise or comment as soon as possible. Tthank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.198.17 ( talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The text currently says that treason only applies to persons who "owe allegiance to the Queen in right of the United Kingdom." But there is no source and revised Treason Felony Act 1848 refers to "the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries." [4] Does anyone have a source for the claim? I note too that the article text says that UK citizens owe allegiance to the Queen of the UK. But they also owe allegiance to the person of the Queen. TFD ( talk) 12:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I propose to merge High treason, which is quite short, into this article, as that article says it is essentially the same concept as Treason. I think the distinction between high and petty treason treason can be handled briefly here. Jonathunder ( talk) 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The sentence about the Rosenbergs comes directly after this sentence: "However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as... espionage." The Rosenbergs are a notorious example of this. Nowhere does it say that they were originally charged with treason, or that treason and espionage are the same thing. It says the opposite! Richard75 ( talk) 08:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Antinational and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Antinational until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
08:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Anti-national and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Anti-national until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Some sections currently reference allegiance to or crimes against "Her Majesty," "the Queen," etc., rather than using the styling for the current reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. I understand that there is a lot of editing going on due to the sheer volume of articles that need to be edited at this time, but at some point this will need to be edited to reflect the current reign of King Charles III. Xxthedeathlordxx ( talk) 23:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Xxthedeathlordxx ( talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)