None Dare Call it Treason

There are various definitions of the word “treason”. My American Heritage Dictionary, for example, defines it as “violation of allegiance toward one’s sovereign or country...by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.” Article III of the US Constitution defines it to consist only in “in levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort”.

Now, thanks to Gene McNary – a man who, thus far, has never been known for his legal scholarship – we have a different definition of the term. It’s not a new one – more on that in a moment – but it certainly covers a lot of territory. According to Mr. McNary, treason – a crime punishable by death – is what Pulizter Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett committed when, during an interview for Iraqi television, he suggested that the war might not be going quite the way we expected it to.

Now, Mr. McNary is hardly the first politician (or even ex-politician) to suggest that contradicting official government rhetoric is grounds for extermination. The idea has a long and colorful history, from Nero to Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Mr. McNary should count himself lucky that former President Clinton didn’t accept his definition of treason. Otherwise he, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and host of other right-wing politicians and members of the commentariat would be pushing up daisies right now for their statements during the conflicts in the Balkans and Ethiopia.

It could be worse, I suppose. Autocrats, past and present, who have shared Mr. McNary’s view of treason have, for the most part, not only regarded death as the proper punishment, but have also deemed a session with the State torturer beforehand as useful. So I guess Mr. McNary is relatively merciful, since he’s not recommending the use of the tongs or cattle prods preceding the Big Drop.

Sarcasm aside, the notion that dissent, however mild, constitutes a prosecutable offense is not merely wrong – it’s deeply, profoundly un-American. It’s offensive to anyone who believes in the principles on which this nation was founded; it’s an affront to the men who, as the risk of their own lives, created a nation in which freedom of speech was not only not criminal but actually sacrosanct; and it’s an insult to the many men and women who have given their lives to protect that freedom.

And what, after all, is more disloyal: questioning the policies of a particular administration or questioning basic American values?

I do agree with Mr. McNary on one point, however. Americans should be better educated about their system of laws and government. A remedial session on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for example, is clearly in order for certain ex-country executives.